Crimes of Confusion?

| | Comments (2)

1. Would-be robber fights back:

It was very reptitive, it used the words "would-be" twice. Even though it was for two different people, you would think they could come up with a different word. I also found the article had grammer errors. Aren't editors supposed to catch things like that? Maybe they were in a hurry.


2.Plea deal reached in Jeannette enslavement, kidnap case:

I had a really hard time following what was going on. Maybe it was just me but the article was confusing. There were too many variations on what was going to happen to the alleged kidnappers. That was why I think I found it confusing. Did anybody else find this article confusing?


April Minerd said:

There were a lot of details in the Jeannette enslavement article, maybe too many. For instance, as Matt Henderson pointed out in his blog, the exact addresses for both victim and accused were provided. I wondered how relevant that information was and how fair it was to both parties to include it. There was also the seemingly contradictory bit about not releasing alleged victims names, which I mentioned in my own blog. I agree, Michelle; it was a little difficult to follow it all.

They were both confusing. The would-be's threw me off and it was difficult determining which was the robber and which was the victim. The reporters probably did rush through writing it considering the event happened near midnight and it would have to have been written overnight. Following the second article was difficult as well. The age of the victim went from being 17 to 19 with not explanation of dates or passing time. Also, they kept mentioning where the convicted people lived and what their ages were. It was too wordy for the simple message it was telling.

Leave a comment

Type the characters you see in the picture above.


Recent Comments

Kaitlin Monier on Crimes of Confusion?: They were both confusing. The
April Minerd on Crimes of Confusion?: There were a lot of details in