This article about a legal skirmish between the EPA and oil companies who may have violated their policy is a good example of one that seeks to serve the public, which makes sense considering that that's the explicit purpose of ProPublica. The reporter achieves this goal by discussing an issue, which isn't getting much attention from major national media outlets. This serves the public because it gives people a broader scope of access to knowledge not everyone else is prioritizing, but which is still important all the same.
The environmental and legal issues the article brings up are relevant not only to environmental issues, but also to health issues since the potential pollution caused can contaminate water supplies. What is more, this article is skeptical of the actions of big oil companies, as well as, to some extent, questioning how the EPA handled the situation.
The press has a responsibility to hold the people in power accountable, and this piece could be an example of “watchdog” journalism. However, it is not overly political and makes sure to point out the discrepancy between the statements and actions of the oil companies, while pointing out that they couldn’t be sure about the timeline.
This article is a good example of how “balance” should not be the main priority of journalism, since while the reporter incorporates multiple perspectives and reasoning, it also makes sense of them and makes it clear that the oil companies were operating on questionable logic.
This is an example of reporting on the environment that has a clear direct application to certain people. In this way, it makes an environmental issue pressing to a reader since it has a direct and potentially immediate consequence for Americans. Instead of being a panic about the worries of anti-environmental practices of big corporations, this article does the public a service by succinctly explaining the application of this broader issue in a single case basis.
This LA Times article about a woman who was sentenced with stealing a huge sum of money from the school she worked at is useful to the public for different reasons that the ProPublica one. It informs the local community about an ongoing litigation, especially relevant to parents within a certain school district.
This is the kind of information that, although it mostly serves a niche interest, is probably very important to the local community. The verdict may help restore a sense of justice to an outraged community, and at the very least will serve to keep them aware about the events in their community, which could serve to unify them. In this way, I think this article provides a particular service to the public.
The article is not especially detailed, instead it is basically a summary of legal proceedings. The reporter does not pose any theories on the broader importance of the issue, nor does it explain what the event meant to the community, which might have served a broader public, as well as giving it more significance, however, to some, even having easy access to the details revealed is an important enough reason to publish this.
As a blog post, the function of this article is more minimalistic than the ProPublica one. The format of a blog post allows it to be brief, and limited to straight facts, such as those reported here, are not interesting for all that many words. One of the strengths of this piece that engages the blog medium is a graphic to the side of the text. The graphic includes a small map of the school whose funds were stolen, as well as statistics of the number of teachers and students at the school. This allows a reader with less knowledge of the subject to have a better understanding of the context of the issue, without bogging down the actual content of the article.
Excellent. Your insights into what make these two very different pieces both in the public interest are well thought-out and convincing. Would have liked to see something on cynicism versus skepticism. something to think about in the future.
ReplyDelete