Robert Gearty writes about NHL hockey player and Olympic “Miracle on Ice” gold medalist, Mark Pavelich being found unfit because of mental illness in his assault case. In August, he was charged after beating his neighbor with a meatal pipe, accusing him of spiking his beer after a fishing trip. His sister spoke of how kind he always had been, blaming the act on possible chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE) developed because of hockey. 

The newsworthy value of this story is prominence as well as bizarre. At the beginning of the article, Gearty even introduces the assault suspect in a way that recognizes what Pavelich is known for, being a “Miracle on Ice” Olympic hockey player. It’s bizarre because when people think of Olympic gold medalists, they don’t usually coin them as being a criminal. It has the shock factor that makes this such an interesting story.

It was strange to me that they told of some of Pavelich’s achievements at the end of the story, giving him a bit more of a story. Even though it follows the inverted triangle, as it should, I feel like stories about criminals need to be more relevant to the now event of what is happening. It makes me think back to the Brock Turner stories. Where Turner was given a reason of why he raped the girl and listed what he was involved in at school and his grades and great reputation as a swimmer. Those facts have nothing to do with the case yet news stories still include them to give the suspect substance, make the story more interesting.

Joe Sutton reports that there are more than 26 million people from California to Arizona is under red flag warnings today, meaning fire danger. There have been 11 fires this past week that have displaced tens of thousands of people, ordering them to evacuate their homes. This week weather’s forecast includes powerful winds that are supposed to be up to 60-70 mph. These winds will worsen the conditions of the fire, more than they are right now. 

This article was half way down on CNN’s front page, which I think is surprising. Even though all the news with Trump is nationally recognized, I think 11 wildfires that are affecting more than 26 million and forcing tens of thousands of people out of their homes is a bit more newsworthy than the latest Trump scandal, that has been going on ever since he became president. I asked a couple of my classmates if they knew about the fires and they told me no. This just shows how uninformed people are, the most of what they’ve heard is most likely a photo on Twitter. Other than that, I did like the separation Sutton used to differentiate between two different kinds of fires, titling sections and describing some impacts of the specific fires. It will be interesting how the news coverage will be different after the winds occur and what CNN will cover and who they will interview.

Print story: https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/23/asia/hong-kong-taiwan-murder-intl-hnk/index.html

Broadcast story: https://www.cnn.com/specials/latest-news-videos

Both leads address the who and what but the broadcast least gives more detail, saying that the “suspect vows to return to Hong Kong and turn himself in”, whereas the print lead only says he “walks free”.  The broadcast version is focused on the suspect apologizing and his plans for after he is released but gives no specific background information on why he killed his girlfriend or what protests occurred because of the murder. The print story, however, immediately addresses the protests and connects the two events (the murder and the protests), giving readers background information on why this man walking free is important. The broadcast story only uses one quote from Chan, the murder suspect, though the print story includes quotes from Chan as well as from the Hong Kong government. The attribution is clearly stated in print, telling us who said it but the broadcast story recorded an interview with Chan and just used a clip from there. Obviously, the broadcast story has a bit of an advantage with the video and images they incorporate, choosing to show videos of Chan being interviewed as well as videos from the broadcast, played when the reporter spoke of the protests for a second. The sound they chose to use was background nose of reporters asking questions, people screaming while protesting, and Chan speaking in his native language in an interview. The print story, however, has the broadcast story attached at the beginning as well as a video at the bottom (which would not allow me to access it) of the protests in Hong Kong. No sound or pictures were used in the print version. I think the thing I found most interesting regarding the differences of the two stories was how little the broadcast story offered about the whole event. It merely presented just the current event, disregarding the possible need of background information the reader may need to know to be more informed about the issue.

Losinski starts her article off with the statement that “564,000 Canadians currently live with a form of dementia”. And though dementia is a common risk for older people, recent breakthroughs in science are providing optimism for a cure. Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis came up with a  test that detects change in the brain that can lead to Alzheimer’s. A neurological change is hard to cure due to the challenge of getting past the blood-brain barrier. To open this barrier, an ultrasound they developed will use microbubbles and sound waves. The article goes on to provide prevention tips, saying that a healthy diet and life style is certainly one way to decrease the risk factor.

As an informative article, I think this article did a great job at including all the components readers would be curious about. The news value it falls under is impact. Knowing that science is learning more about dementia and the causes and possible preventions can one day prevent Alzheimer’s in hundreds, possibly thousands, of people. This information was broken up so readers could find the diagnosis, treatment, prevention, diet, and exercise. I think that for the type of article it was, it worked well!

Goldstein reports on Andrew Levy deciding to pay off more than 400 kids’ school lunch debt in the town of Jupiter, Florida. His reason for paying off the children’s debt is because he was astonished by the number of students in debt and wanted to help out the community that he’s fallen in love with. Having no children or personal connections to the schools, it’s a simple act of kindness. Levy’s actions inspired others to also come forward donate and he says he is planning on organizing a fundraiser in the community four times per year to help out those families in debt.

To start with, the article’s title was a bit misleading. The title includes “entire town’s school lunch debt”, but once you begin reading the article further, it says he only paid off 400 kids’ debt. There was still a lot of debt to be paid off so phrasing it that way made me assume he paid a lot more. I was curious about the motivation of the act, so I’m glad it was closer to the beginning of the story. I could see how the inverted triangle format could’ve been used but I think it’s arguable if the fundraiser Levy is holding is more important and should be closer to the beginning than it was. 

This article focused on the plan that both Senator Elizabeth Warren and the first openly gay presidential candidate, Mayor Pete Buttigieg, released to the CNN town halls that are supposed to protect the rights of LGBTQ Americans. The article goes on to talk about the specifics of the plan, the legislation, executive actions, and the policies some advocates critique the plan on lacking. LGBTQ rights haven’t been a huge focus in the debates at this point of the political campaigns but some forums will be focusing on them as election time gets closer.

I thought this article was unnecessarily long. It was wordy and repeated itself in certain sections, especially sections where they would mention Buttigieg. And though it was long, the transitions were clear and smooth. They used phrases like “Warren was not the only candidate…” and “The plans don’t encompass all the reforms…” to prepare the reader for more information. Just, again, I just think that the re-introduction to Buttigieg in the section meant for advocates’ critiques made the article seem repetitive and ruined its flow.