Weekly Response 11/9

Since my last post, more articles have come up surrounding the accusations against Herman Cain of sexual harassment. Almost in response to my complaints about the last article, women have now come forward without anonymity, which gives articles much more credibility. In a New York Times article this week, one of the women spoke directly to the Times, giving them a quote that made their previous articles seem much more valid, and aided the overall picture they are trying to present.

The one remaining problem with this article is the amount of secondary sources it appears to use. While the article incorporates a lot of information and quotes from people involved, not many of the people seem to be directly in contact with the Times. A lot of information was gathered from emails, televised debates/speeches, or other ways. Some of the information is presented, but without a source of where it came from, which leads me as a reader to assume that it was gathered from outside sources. I would've liked for the reporters to get in contact with the people they used to verify information and get personal quotes to use.

While direct quotes from Cain were gathered at a news conference, which seems to make it appropriate, I can't help but wonder if such a high profile newspaper as the New York Times could not get an interview with Cain himself - or at least five minutes on the phone to see if he could provide some sort of commentary.

The second article that I found interesting is from The Guardian, and its placement, rather than its content, is what first grabbed my attention. The article is about Eddie Murphy quitting as this year's host of the Oscar's. This seemed to be the feature story, taking up the largest portion of the page, with a huge picture of Eddie Murphy. What made this interesting was the articles that juxtaposed the Murphy one - much smaller, beside this article, were articles pertaining to the economic crisis in Greece, climate change, and new policies in Iran. I found it frustrating that an entertainment article - specifically an American entertainment article - took center stage next to articles handling much larger and effecting issues. I guess this is really commentary on what grabs readers, and what doesn't.

The actual article was very well-written, however, and I was really impressed by the way the journalist handled the true subject - producer Brett Ratner's reignation after criticism for using a homophobic slur. The journalist managed to present information and quotes surrounding Ratner and his offensive slur, while also giving a little insight into Ratner's sense of humor. For me, this article wasn't so accusatory and one-sided, as it very well could have been. It seemed to give two sides to an individual who already has been widely persecuted.