1. Here's an interesting piece from the Wall Street Journal about alimony (payments one spouse makes to another after a divorce). This may seem like a somewhat adult article, but I was struck by the tone created by the interviews or lack thereof. hhhhmmm. I've talked about editorializing, but can you skew an article with a selective usage of quotes? Is there a bias present in this piece? If so, to what side oes it bend? If not, how does the writer maintain objectivity with such a heated topic?
2. An interesting read from Slate Magazine. It's about the Northwestern pilots that missed the airport, among other things, and about distracted driving. Where are we headed in an autopilot world? What do you think of the format of the argument? It draws heavily on news from other sources. Does that work well? Is there a smooth flow to the piece?
Share your insights, brilliance and wisdom.
1 comment:
When I opened the alimony piece, I was expecting an interesting and engaging piece. I was disappointed. I do feel the author had bias (on the side that alimony is bad and should be abolished), but the piece was also just ridiculously long and boring. Quotes help break up background information, but the author included very few quotes for the length of the piece. One of the biggest issues is that the examples presented were of people who are being unfairly hurt by alimony; there wasn't evidence of when alimony can be a good thing. I know from family experience that though alimony can be cruel and unfair, it can also be incredibly necessary and sensible.
Sarah Strand
Post a Comment