A short article with short paragraphs, this piece feels choppy and unnecessarily objective for a small story regarding an escaped turkey.  While by no means seeming worthy of a larger article, the piece feels rushed. While begging for emotion, the author does little to remedy the cold objectivity in which the piece is portrayed.  The frequent line breaks only add to the feeling of neglect, and feel as if the author was merely trying fill page space.

Even for a short news story, I’m sorry, but this turkey tale lacks meat.

An engaging article that while not as deep or as informative as it could be, reads with a light hearted and conversational tone that communicates to the reader well, even if the subject matter not be particularly applicable.

The quotes and interviews used in this piece contribute well to the reading of the piece, fitting in with the style of author’s writing while communicating ideas as if attempting to inform a friend.  This inviting style coupled with the relatively short length of the article draws in your attention, and keeps it long enough to deliver the content while keeping the initial strength of interest.

To put it simply, this author is a deliciously short read that sits well with any post Thanksgiving meal.

Andrew Stelzer makes alot of sense in his report on cents, writing with a charismatic flourish and the occasional pun.  His article is easy to read and carries well from paragraph to paragraph, maintaining a light and friendly tone while exploring a somewhat disheartening topic.

Stelzer takes a fair stance in his writing, addressing both sides of the story with near equal emphasis which lends to a very neutral but positively intended reporting style that reads well and informs without difficulty.

The article’s content leaves little to be desired, and the cadence of the writing carries well from one paragraph to the other with only an occasional hiccup.

Whether you’re a penny person or  want simpler change, both sides of the story are told effectively with strong support, and leave you the reader to decide for yourself.  In short? No amount of inflation will depreciate the value of this reporter’s story.

NPR’s Associated Press remains constantly objective when touching on th Bush Administration’s War on Terror.  But such objectivity has it’s problems too however, and the article sounds with the delicacy of a cast iron sledge.

The Bush Administration is a touchy subject for some, and this report opens old wounds drawing comparison between Obama’s troop surge and the lack of troop support during Bush’s hunt for Bin Laden.

But to what effect? It is common knowledge the failures of the administration and it’s attempts to apprehend the terrorist.  The report is notably one sided, dropping hard facts while giving little explanation as to their cause. This feeling is further developed as the only statement given for defense is an unquoted concern by Donald Rumsfield.

So if not merely to inform, why report in this fashion. The writing itself tells us the reason:, “to affix a measure of blame for the state of the war today on military leaders under former president George W. Bush, specifically Donald H. Rumsfeld as defense secretary and his top military commander, Tommy Franks.”

So is this report intended to generate favor for the current President? To inform the ignorant fairly and accurately? Or to simply focus on failures of the past?  Perhaps all of the above, but regardless, I find that this article does little more than to rub salt in old wounds while focusing attention away from more pressing concerns.

Whether it’s to justify increased troops in Afghanistan or merely to inform, this article rekindles old fires that are perhaps best left to smolder.

Regarding this particular forum post, we can see that the staff of the barometer have taken a very socially connective and informal tone.  This is likely because they are attempting to relate to us as readers, especially their target audience, a specific generation of kids who grew up with the Cookie Monster.

I particularly like this post, as it communicates it’s purpose clearly and effectively, stating exactly what it has problems with, while acknowledging and dismissing several facts that nay sayers might use to counter the intended argument.

While we all have a soft spot in our heart for the Cookie Monster of old, this piece aims to deal with a new monster; a monster created by unnecessary political correctness, irresponsible parenting, and poor lifestyle choices.

I feel that the article does not hit hard enough upon the need for parents to actually parent, and loses a bit of the momentum gained from using the Cookie Monster as an icon to draw readers and sway opinion.  Even though I love a good jab at the media, especially where politically correctness is concerned, I can’t help but feel that it could have done more by expanding on the real causes behind the issue.

This article was an aggressive opinion article that attempts to quiet any resentment held by the reader because of the transition of free web services to paid subscription.  The tone is almost disciplinary, reiterating “stop” several times as if to snap the reader out of an emotional state and so that the writer can then reason with the audience.

But yet, despite the well seeming intentions of this blog, one can detect agitation in the post, and comes off almost like a veiled rant.   The points covered by this blog however were right on target; drawing attention towards the net’s tendency to expect free content, and the difficulties of maintaining those services without charging their users.

I do feel, however, that more thought could have been given to the possible consequences that may result if every media site begins to charge money for it’s services.

This news post I found to be extremely informative. Hoffman’s objective style of writing was clear and concise, highlighted both sides of the issue, and provided useful links supporting the piece.  The article was so objective that I could not sense which Hoffman supported on the issue, and because of that objectivity, the reader is left to their own opinion and is merely informed of the event.  Hoffman does a brilliant job of avoiding this controversial land mine, and in doing so, the reader is drawn into the article without feeling repelled by opinion.

But for an article seeking to convince it’s readers about the negativity inherent to the penalty, Lindroff aught first to consider his own biases and opinion, and whether or not to let them slip into his writing on such a topic.  It isn’t even halfway through the first page that he pull’s steps on the time honored tradition of bashing former President George W. Bush.

And while there are numerous facts supporting his argument, there is a flaw in his reasoning that leaves the skeptical reader with a bitter taste in their mouth.  If the sifting of opinion and belief can be equated with ethnic cleansing practices, where can we draw the line?  While this article does a brilliant job of softening the author’s opinion so as not to invite much question to the article’s purpose.  For while he has provided a clearly written and informative piece, the content is clearly weighted towards a personal objective.

It is interesting to note the change in political media as we progress deeper into the 21st century.  The government has traditionally been late to embrace new media content, but as was promised with our current president, it would seem even the government wishes to ride the winds of change. For in a time when the propagation and consumption of viral media is king, Obama wishes to become it’s chief advisor.

Many of you are aware of the massive amounts of Obama themed media that came with his presidency.  And while I do not personally follow Mr. Obama or his political agenda, I have to give the man props for capitalizing on a media hungry nation.

But as with anything political, theres always some form of controversy that arises, and while I find it interesting that the government would pioneer it’s own web media devices, I can’t help but feel that the gains experienced by technique are well offset by further transforming the internet into a political battleground.

And granted, it’s a wonderful thing to inform the googleverse of the latest decisions and happenings in the political world. But as is the case with any news media, misinformation spread by bandwagon enthusiasts and misinterpreted opinion soon rides the coattails of official content.

But that aside, what does this mean for internet media? Will this trend become a full fledged government media competing along side other news groups like CNN and MSNBC?  Could it be that government media will become the only “official” media which we are expected to trust? Or perhaps it will merely stay a political tool to showcase and paint murals of our president on our favorite websites.

Only time can tell; I for one am not enthralled by the idea that our ever growing government may soon replace or capitalize on our media.