New York Times Log: November 13-15

Monday, November 13^th:

The Times story on gun rights is an excellent article.  I really found the structure the used, narrating a very specific example at the outset of the piece and then delving into the background of states rulings on gun rights and felons apparently easy access to them.  The article is well organized and very well written. 

This article is a good example of investigative news piece rather than a regular summary news article.  They indicated that they “examined hundreds of restoration cases in several states.”  A terrifying statistic the Times reports, offered by Washington, D.C. pardon lawyer Margaret C. Love is that “in more than half the states, felons have a reasonable chance of getting back their gun rights.”

This article was also much more substantial and longer than most other summary news articles.  The type of people the reporters talked to was much more varied than in summary news articles.  For example, one source who offered an opinion was a felon who had his was a felon who had his own gun rights restored easily.  He said, “It’s kind of spooky…we could have all kinds of crazy hoodlums out here with guns that shouldn’t have guns.”  The article especially focused on the powerful lobby for gun rights in the United States and how much influence it has in Washington D.C.  The article then takes a close look at five other cases of convicted felons who were easily granted gun rights and attempted shootings or killed after obtaining these rights.

Tuesday, November 14^th:

The article on the changes the nation’s healthcare has undergone since the Patient Protection and Affordable Care act in 2010 was a substantial look a t a very complex issue.  The consensus of the article is that things have changed considerably.

The opening sentence of the piece is good writing:  “For the nation’s health care system, there many be no going back” hits hard as a lead.  It gets the point across well and makes you want to keep reading.

The article is slightly difficult to understand just because the content is so dense and complicated, seeing as individual states are challenging it.

I thought that the piece on young people’s enthusiasm for President Obama starting to wane was interesting, given that it was so overwhelmingly strong in the 2008 election.  The article heavily relied on quotes from all the young people who are not reconsidering their votes for President Obama, but not fining themselves nearly as excited about the change he has so far produced as president.

Wednesday, November 15^th:

Today I focused on international stories, like the one on frustrations building in Europe over Germany’s perceived domination of the European economy.  I thought that the lead of this summary was too long and wordy.  It could absolutely have been re-written to be clearer.  The rest of the article was good, but also slightly dense.  The reporter mainly used sources like financial experts from different governments, private groups, or academic institutions, and did not incorporate quotes of popular sentiment in European countries, rather than just alluding to it.  The article certainly was well informed, but it wasn’t very compelling.