This article had straightfoward reporting of the topics in question. I feel like the hotel owner who was fined for not allowing a Muslim woman wearing a headscarf to stay was kind of just thrown in. It was part of the lead, but then only had one paragraph. I feel like the author doesn't like the law at all and wants the readers to view it as crazy too, so they point out how the laws seem disagree in the lead.
I would have liked to hear from one of the women (or the family of one of the women) who can no longer attend these classes. What were her reactions?
I also feel that the last paragraph was unnecessary and could be cut out. It can stay, it just doesn't really add anything to the piece.
It was a good, if short, presentation of the facts.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2008-10-09-burqa-ban_N.htm
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Contacting one of the people actually involved seems self evident. The reporter at no point contacts either the banned women or the bed and breakfast operator. This is a glaring omission. It takes just a few phone calls to humanize this story. Why wouldn't you?
I notice that the story is by an Associated Press reporter. Do stories by the USA Today reporters have a different approach to sources? That would be something to look for.
BTW, on my screen your reference to the story isn't a live link. I had to cut and paste.
Post a Comment