Final Blog: Online Gambling

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/10/AR2010121005756.html?sid=ST2010121007458

This article was a great example of good journalism. Not only was the story newsworthy, but the writer organized it in a way that was clear and understandable to the reader.

The lead does a great job of answering the question of why a reader should care, while at the same time setting the stage for the story. The writer doesn’t divulge the important information until the end of the lead, which is clearly seen.

The next paragraph brings a big name into full view of the reader by introducing Harry Reid, senate majority leader. Reid, who introduced the bill to legalize online gambling, is important to the story because he is a face that the writer can put on the issue. A reader wants to be able to associate information with a face; in this case it’s Reid’s face.

This second paragraph also spells out clearly, what the bill is all about. Stating clearly what it is trying to accomplish, the writer is able to create a second connection with the reader by providing an issue that affects the lives of millions of Americans. I like how the writer puts this information together in order to ensure interest from the reader, because it is possible that they don’t know the name Harry Reid.

His third paragraph then spells out another key issue: the money. When big figures are part of a story, it is imperative that the writer makes it clear and easy to find in his or her story. People care about money and want to know how their tax money is being spent.

The writer then goes along to show both sides of the story. First he gives quotes from Reid, the face of the story. It’s important to get these quotes to give validity to the story and to guarantee that Reid was involved. He then has quotes from other people involved with the bill. This helps to establish the affirmative argument for online gambling.

Next, in order to ensure good journalism, the writer includes the opposing side. Not only does he use sources from the political arena (senators and congressmen), but he gets quotes from Focus on the Family, which represents a good portion of the country’s news viewers.

I appreciate the balance in this article most of all. I like how the writer first explains what the bill is about, then introduces the debate of whether or not it is a good thing to do. He doesn’t voice his own opinion. He doesn’t use information that does not pertain to the bill. He uses monetary examples to show how the bill will boost the economy. He uses moral values voiced by the opposition to spell out the negative argument.

I enjoyed reading this article because it was timely, concise, and balanced. The author painted a picture of the issue at hand, which was well timed because the bill had not been passed yet. This is important because if it had already passed, there would have been no point on showing both sides of the debate, because it had already been passed. I enjoyed reading how the party politics came into play and how this bill can affect our country. This was a great article.