A story by David Nakamura in the Washington Post caught my eye, one called "Obama placed on defensive in appearance before Latino groups".
I typically don't engage in politics much, but by the nature of the city in which I live - it comes as close as second hand smoke.
Recently, critics of the administration have touted Obama's loss of support from the Washington Post, and to me, this article embodies the Washington Post's newer lackluster view of the current administration.
As far as how the article reads: Nakamura's fourth paragraph quotes a source, after his nut graf and lede. The lede lays out one point of view, while the majority of the article refutes the lede itself. The second and third pargraph give the details of where, when, who, what, and why. The article largely uses the issue of immigration to drive the headline, and to prove the accuracy of the headline.
Overall, the article unfurls well by keeping the reader interested throughout the entire piece.
I typically don't engage in politics much, but by the nature of the city in which I live - it comes as close as second hand smoke.
Recently, critics of the administration have touted Obama's loss of support from the Washington Post, and to me, this article embodies the Washington Post's newer lackluster view of the current administration.
As far as how the article reads: Nakamura's fourth paragraph quotes a source, after his nut graf and lede. The lede lays out one point of view, while the majority of the article refutes the lede itself. The second and third pargraph give the details of where, when, who, what, and why. The article largely uses the issue of immigration to drive the headline, and to prove the accuracy of the headline.
Overall, the article unfurls well by keeping the reader interested throughout the entire piece.
Glad to read unfurls instead of unfolds. Curious, given it's acquisition.
ReplyDelete