This article is about a mother who talks about how addicted her kids are to text messaging even after her husband had banned them from it. Although she admits to liking it, she has mixed view points on the issue and secretly wished her husband would bring it back. When I was reading this, I have to be honest and say that I got a little annoyed. I wanted the author to pick a side and stay with it instead of flipping back and forth. I felt like every other paragraph she changed her mind on the issue. Also, in the byline, the journalists talks about how text messaging can cause bullying and driving accident. Later in the article she talks about the bullying part but never mentions anything about the driving part. I don't think that it was neccasary to add in the byline if they weren't going to talk about it in their actual article..
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/30/when-dad-banned-text-messaging/#more-861
1 comment:
I agree that the author's constantly changing viewpoints and opinions were somewhat frusterating and distracting in this piece. However, I was more annoyed by the fact that, in the byline, the author had mentioned driving accidents being related to texting but then did not explain this further. You are right, she shouldn't have mentioned it if she wasn't going to elaborate. One important "rule" of journalism is to only include relevant information and not to write anything for the sake of just having it in there. I found this piece to be mostly annoying, it had its moments where I thought it would get better but over all it disappointed me.
Post a Comment