From the New York Times, 10/02/2007
Headline reads:
Judge Rules on Bush's Order About Presidential Records
The federal judge rules against an order issued by Bush in 2001 that allows a president to withhold former presidential papers, deemed confidential, from the public. The order, established in an attempt to conceal 68,000 pages from Reagan's term in office was ruled against on October 1st 2007.
This article answers who, what, where, when, and how. It is of immediate significance because it deals with how much power the executive branch has and it deals with what the public is able to know about the actions of the U.S. government. While this article could have come out a week from now, the decision was just made and has immediate effects. It is also event driven, timely, has a focus outside the writer and is reactive.
4 comments:
Good! Could the writer have used a different lead and been as effective?
I really like this lead--it immediately shows a conflict between the executive and judicial branches and gives all of the necessary information.
I like the lede- I personally try to cram as much information as I can into a single sentence, but you did a great job of getting the significance of the article to the reader up front, and then backing up your statement with important supplemental information. Did you find any sense of personal commentary or statement on the part of the writer within the article?
I actually tend to agree with Marin a bit here; although the lede is clear, I had to reread it because it was so dense. It is a great show of conflict, though. Nice analysis!
Post a Comment