I hope this is helpful,hello
Could someone please help me edit these two critiques I'm writing for two different news stories.
The news story is written so that it leaves a strong impression of cruelties that are inflicted upon animals in the Calgary Stampede. The Calgary Stampede is
beingcalled a "brutal violent spectacle" and it’s"a form of violent entertainment (in which) animals are abused and exploited." This part of the story is reinforced in the lead. One of the significant faults of the story lies in the fact that it is missing background information which enables us to understand why ]they havethese kinds of entertainment, andwhat the importance of havingthese sports is, and why doespeople persist in having such annual events. No attempt is made to discover the reasons foranswers to all of these questions.
Also, there is a lack of balance in this story. The Humane Society of Canada, Responsible Animal Care Society and the Canadian Horse Defence Coalition are in opposition to various rodeo events
overbecause of what they see as the mistreatment of the animals. We are given their point of view, their reasons why these events should not be allowed, and actual statistics of animal deaths whichresulting from these events. With the exception of a remark about the allure of the sports and why people are drawn to them, there is an absence of the points of view of supporters of the Calgary Stampede and the Grand Prairie Stompede.
Finally, the story is presented so as to stress the dramatic effects of the events. The focus of the story is the outrageous cruelty and death inflicted upon the animals of the rodeo events. The fact that this could be a tourist attraction that benefits many local businesses is not mentioned, nor that these events could have historical importance to the people living in these areas.
was not mention at all.
Overall, the report of this story is missing background information, there is lack of balance in sources provided and the overly dramatic elements seem
s to bemake the story consider newsworthy. I don't understand your conclusion. Do you think the story is or is not newsorthy?
The headline of the report leads the reader to believe that a pandemic is costing an “outrageous" fee (amount? a fee is what is charged for a specific and limited service.)* But careful reading shows that the headline is grossly misleading. The nurses are outraged that doctors are
tonegotiating an extra fee for treating patients with the H1N1 flu during the pandemics. The most serious fault of this story is the limited number of sources, which results in lack of balance. All the concrete information comes from just one person, Linda Silas. Silas is obviously upset that nurses “will not be offered enhanced payment”. We are only getting Silas' point of view of the government “negotiating an outrageous rate in case of a public crisis”. The point of view of the government and the doctors is not presented.
Also, there is insufficient background for us to understand why the government is negotiating with doctors about extra fees in the case of an H1N1 pandemic. No attempt is made to discover the reasons
for thewhy doctors are getting the extra fees, while nurses are not getting the same thing.
Overall, this story is not, written well enough for a reader to fully understand what is going on.
becauseIt suffers from limited sources, which results in lack of balance. Missing background information also keeps the reader from having the 'big picture.'.
thank you so much