The tragic events that occurred on Thursday at Umpqua Community College in Oregon has swept the nation off their feet after a gunman killed 9 and wounded many others. Outrage sparked when the new's media nearly instant descent on anyone posting such accounts, in search of interviews.
The author is trying to show the media's reaction towards this backlash and how they can't help but let it happen because that is their job and it's what they're supposed to do. One of the strengths in this article is that it shows all of the viewpoints from the media's perspective so that you can see how they feel/react towards it. One of the main weaknesses of this article is that it doesn't give much information on how the general public and witnesses feel towards it. It needs to show perspective from everyone. The author doesn't show any type of bias towards one side or the other but since he is writing this article through the medias perspective we can assume that he is more lenient towards the media's side.
The author's argument does support the main points because he backs up what he says with evidence. The evidence that is provided can be convincing towards people that are in the middle although since it is focused on how the media feels it can make it seem sympathetic towards them. There can be ramifications towards this article based on what other's feel towards the subject. As a graphic designer/ videographer it seems like the evidence does tie back to the main points although it can be misleading because it only talks about how the media feels and not so much as the public. I don't understand why the author didn't explain how the public felt. This could have been because the writer was unclear.
Overall this article was very well written and to the point although their were some details missing, especially from someone else's perspective.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/vultures-or-reporters-after-shooting-witnesses-hit-with-media-requests/2015/10/01/c7c53a86-6871-11e5-9ef3-fde182507eac_story.html
The author is trying to show the media's reaction towards this backlash and how they can't help but let it happen because that is their job and it's what they're supposed to do. One of the strengths in this article is that it shows all of the viewpoints from the media's perspective so that you can see how they feel/react towards it. One of the main weaknesses of this article is that it doesn't give much information on how the general public and witnesses feel towards it. It needs to show perspective from everyone. The author doesn't show any type of bias towards one side or the other but since he is writing this article through the medias perspective we can assume that he is more lenient towards the media's side.
The author's argument does support the main points because he backs up what he says with evidence. The evidence that is provided can be convincing towards people that are in the middle although since it is focused on how the media feels it can make it seem sympathetic towards them. There can be ramifications towards this article based on what other's feel towards the subject. As a graphic designer/ videographer it seems like the evidence does tie back to the main points although it can be misleading because it only talks about how the media feels and not so much as the public. I don't understand why the author didn't explain how the public felt. This could have been because the writer was unclear.
Overall this article was very well written and to the point although their were some details missing, especially from someone else's perspective.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/vultures-or-reporters-after-shooting-witnesses-hit-with-media-requests/2015/10/01/c7c53a86-6871-11e5-9ef3-fde182507eac_story.html
Your description of the event was really thorough and described the tragedy very well.
ReplyDelete