The first article I read was about three teenage girls from Brooklyn, who were shot on Friday. The story is short, just the bare essentials, no names, just ages, location of where the shooting took place, and the hospital the girls were sent to. There are no suspects being held in custody, in fact there was no mention of any suspects, just that their was a man on a bike who fired the shots.
The second article was more in depth because its been going on for a while. It is about a "black teen" who was convicted of aggravated-second degree battery, for beating up a "white classmate", and who could possibly face up to 15 years in prison. However, the charges were thrown out because said teen was 16 at the time of the crime, and cannot be tried as an adult.
Comments (3)
Did you read one of the Jena-6 articles? Those were very indepth- the more involved the news story, the longer the article. As for your first article- does it ever make you wonder why they even bother to write it if it's so short? And as a reader, what good does it do us?
Posted by Nessa | September 23, 2007 4:58 PM
Posted on September 23, 2007 16:58
My second article was about the Jena 6 too, it was very indepth. (I hope they find a FAIR way to end this case soon.)
Posted by ChelseaOliver | September 23, 2007 8:33 PM
Posted on September 23, 2007 20:33
The second article seems a little more interesting. I guess it is all how the media presents their stories. The first article you read appears to be simple and a little redundant. The second article seems to use race as a factor.That is what gets readers and the audience thinking.
Posted by Jeremy Barrrick | September 25, 2007 11:23 AM
Posted on September 25, 2007 11:23