Something Different

| | Comments (3)

I thought the first article was interesting because it was about a park and nature, too, which I feel like I don't read about too often. It was also interesting to read that there may be a fee to go to a park. That does come off as a little ridiculous at first, but the more I thought about it, maybe it's not such a bad thing. Overall, you would be supporting the people who keep the park together and the park itself, which ultimately is supporting the well-being of the outdoors and outdoor activity, which we could use more of I'm sure. At the beginning of this article, I kind of felt like I was reading fiction or something. And I also noticed something that I wasn't sure of: "'They want to continue some of their programs, so they’re actually coming back as volunteers,' Recreation Programming and Support specialist Marianne Kjobmand said." I saw that the writer capitalized "supporter" so shouldn't specialist be capitalized too? I just wasn't sure about that.

As for the second article, I liked the lead. It was different, and it pulled me in as a reader. I also thought the subject was interesting and something new as well. Something I really liked, but am not sure if it should be cut because it seems like it's not needed, is when the writer wrote, "There was just one problem." I like the suspense it holds, but at the same time, it seems like it doesn't really need to be there.


Angela Palumbo said:

Although I agree with you that the inclusion of the "There was just one problem" is a little iffy, how else would the reporter transition into this? "The problem is Zadig couldn't find it" wouldn't be much better. Can anyone else think of a better way to transition here. I think that as Baker has it is darn close to as good as it's going to get.

I thought that the lead for Baker's article was also questionable: "Steve Zadig’s auto racing career had never been higher, but his passion for the sport had never been lower." How does Baker know that he was no longer passionate? I see passion as completely different from feeling consciously aware that what you're doing is good. Not to be gross but a woman could make "passionate" love to a person other than her husband. She knows it's wrong but still enjoys it. That's how I see Zadig's relationship to car racing. He loves it but it feels like his mistress. She harms his relationship with his wife.

Wow, Richelle. I just realized I wrote my reflection. Thanks!

Josie Rush said:

I personally really liked Baker's lead. I think the "passionate" thing is something maybe the driver could've said to him during a discussion, or perhaps it was just blatantly obvious through their conversation. I'm not sure it entirely matters either way though (obviously I could be wrong here, they could write a book about everything I don't know about journalism). It's not like Baker was saying the guy was drunk without proof, or claiming the man was a jerk. There was nothing about this statement that was slandarous, so...I dunno. Is there really a problem with the lead? Does anyone have a concrete answer on that?

Wendy Scott said:

I think that the lead was legit. Though for instance I know little about journalism. The lead maybe could be offensive to someone to a point. Though it is a statement some may consider unneeded. I am unsure as well, but Josie I think you have a good theory that there really might not be any thing potentially wrong with the lead. We can always anyalze though and be wrong. Angela and I agree with your explanation! It's interesting!

Leave a comment

Type the characters you see in the picture above.


Recent Comments

Wendy Scott on Something Different: I think that the lead was legi
Josie Rush on Something Different: I personally really liked Bake
Angela Palumbo on Something Different: Although I agree with you that