critue on NYT article "Inquiry Sought in Hilary Clinton's Use of Email"

By Caitlin Fowlkes

The article, “Inquiry Sought in Hilary Clinton’s Use of Email” in the New York Times by Michael S. Schmidt and Matt Apuzzo was well written. The most obvious problem about the article was the fact that the reporters relied on unreliable sources in order to be the first news provider to release the story. Two serious corrections about facts in the story had to be made. These corrected facts were key to the story, one false fact about an investigation into Clinton and the other about a “criminal referral”. These are extremely important facts to have gotten wrong, not a misspelling of a name, but two untrue accusations. It’s even more surprising and shameful because the story was published by one of the most reputable newspapers in America.

            Aside from the wrong information, the article used correct grammar, punctuation and punctuation. It correctly followed Associated Press style. The headline, therefore, was incorrect also. The investigation “addressed the potential compromise of classified information in connection with that email account”, according to the correction. The lead paragraph used a very newsy approach, setting the tone for the article as serious. The article was very informative, but there was no room for imagery. The story was about a possible serious breach of security and NYT wanted to inform America as soon as possible.

           

            The language used was informative, not vivid, leaving no room for fluff. The picture used with the article helped set the tone. The colors were rich and dark, Clinton looks as if she’s refuting an allegation. Her body language looks as if she’s trying to calm down somebody, or all of America, since the general consensus is that Clinton can’t be trusted, licks the shoes of anyone connected with Wall Street and will tell the public whatever needs to be said in order for her to win America over.

            Plenty of personal details regarding the scandal, possible investigation and trials involved with the findings are given. Although, the article can’t be considered fair or ethical because the reporters put their news coverage first before the truthfulness of the story. They published false information about a presidential candidate knowing that the information may not have been entirely true. They also caused much embarrassment to their news organization. If the article had been fact checked correctly during its first run, it would have been ethical. There is no bias in the article, only news. It would be fair to Clinton because it mentions that the emails were only considered classified information after they were reviewed once it became public that Clinton was using a private email for work. The article doesn’t make Clinton out to be a bad person, just slightly technology incompetent.

            All of the sources are correctly attributed and there is nothing in the article that needs to be attributed that isn’t. Although, the article was completely fair and objective in the sense that the information isn’t misleading after the corrections; it is important that the reporters included the part about the speculation of the State Department delaying the hearing on the document handling issue in order to protect Clinton. This is a key component to the story because of all the speculation of government agencies trying to protect Clinton on a number of issues. Without pointing fingers, the reporters covered all sides of the story well. Unfortunately it is a shame to the paper and the reporters’ reputations that the story was published with such important facts incorrect.

article critique

By Caitlin Fowlkes

The article, overall, was well-written, although it didn’t have many positive things to say about Michael Brown. Granted the article was written as a profile, it seemed to focus on the negative portion of his background. It described him being a handful as a child, writing vulgar rap lyrics, smoking marijuana and occasionally fighting. The article tries to make these aspects of his life sound not as bad by sugar coating them with phrases like “He did not have a criminal record as an adult…” and “He got into at least one scuffle with a neighbor.” This did not seem fair. Surely the writer could have found equal parts good about Brown’s life while still casting enough background information on the fact that he was racially profiled.

The tone is respectful in a somber way. The article is extremely informative. It gives the reader plenty of background information on Brown’s early life and his future plans. The lead paragraph has a catchy anecdote that describes Brown as in a stage of maturing. He was growing up and starting to ponder life outside of his immediate sight. This creates sympathy for Brown because it emphasizes how young he really was. The article is objective and the information obtained is legal. The grammar and spelling is correct. Of course, the article is not written entirely in AP style, but New York Times style. There are courtesy titles used and the state is not spelled out in the correction at the bottom of the article.

Although, the article was written well and adheres to basic editorial practices, I would have changed some things. Some paragraphs are written without attribution. Although, it can be perfectly concluded by the information from family and friends that Michael was a handful, it should not be concluded by the writer, in my opinion, unless it is a direct quote from somebody. For example, “He overcame early struggles in school to graduate on time” isn’t attributed to anyone. How does the writer know this? Did he speak to some of Brown’s teachers?

In a few paragraphs in the article, names are not given, but “Mr. Brown’s friend” is used. I would have liked to have known a name, unless that source wanted to stay anonymous. In one paragraph, the writer uses a quote from Brown’s mother explaining that he was in pictures with a gang, but wasn’t in a gang. In my opinion, that was an unnecessary quote. The word “gang” could easily work as a trigger word for many Times readers because it is such a negatively represented word. I also didn’t like how many sentences started with “but” and “and.

The vivid language benefited the descriptions. The article does a good job of conveying the fact that Brown faced many stereotypical inner-city struggles, but he was overcoming them at the end of his adolescence and had a positive future planned out. He may have been dabbling in some normal teenager shenanigans, but he didn’t deserve to die the way he did.