I find this article well written mostly because it’s highly informative. Every sentence has an important fact, and every paragraph touches a new idea. However, the writer, Jay Weaver, stays focused on the court settlement, and doesn’t go off on a tangent about the con artist’s personal life. Also, many of the facts are concrete, and the article doesn’t exceed its necessary limit. It kept me interested throughout its entirety, despite the article’s inverted pyramid approach.
I think the lead is well written because it wasn’t a mouth full, yet it introduced a detailed article. It also showed that Weaver did his research, making the rest of the article more compelling.
Now that I have more information on what makes good writing and journalism, I still think the article is well-written from the informative aspect, but I can see that it's missing some important characteristics. A majority of the quotes Weaver used didn’t add substance to his piece. For example, when he quoted Edward Pozzuoli, a lawyer to one of the fraud victims, it was information that was obvious and already included in the text. Weaver also wasn’t “fair” enough to get different sides of the story. He mentions that certain victims that weren’t the common wealthy investor were going to receive their entire investment back, unlike the others. However, Weaver didn’t get any quotes from one of those 40 victims. Instead he only quoted a wealthy investor, therefore he didn’t succeed in giving “a voice to the voiceless.”
No comments:
Post a Comment