I don't think the coverage is sensational, although I do think it focuses on a fringe element while neglecting the treatment of the majority. If there were 700 deaths accounted for in 2009, how many were accounted for? The article provides number that give great detail, but don't add any context. If there were 1,000,000 deaths overall, 700 might not be so bad. Whereas 1000 total deaths may cause more worry. In my opinion, the story is not necessarily sensational, but it definitely focuses on the most 'newsworthy' cases.
* What is the most compelling paragraph in this story? Why?
I liked this one toward the end:
On a recent day, as Mrs. Taylor sat on the back porch of her apartment at a retirement home in Saratoga Springs, wearing tennis shoes and shorts, she leafed through the guestbook from her son’s funeral, filled with 300 signatures, including those of local elected officials.
“I don’t know if my kid died with dignity or not,” she said.
I think this quote perfectly captures the complex pain the mother is feeling. It really brings the government/policy/bureaucracy thing full-circle as well with the "elected officials" part as well.
* How do the writers provide context and understanding for this story?
As I mentioned before, this is the thing I think the article lacks the most. I think the numerical values in the article need to be cast in a more fair light, rather than thrown in to startle the reader.
The reporter uses lots of personal anecdote and some dialogue to flesh out the plight and personality of some of the victims and their families. The story depends almost entirely on the readers' compassion for context in the story.
No comments:
Post a Comment