Read the articles below, and comment on this post with your reactions/thoughts.
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/2014/12/30/chased-from-the-courthouse-bombing-skeptics-continue-ask-questions/T6QSoAg1HfaLgPnQtX4hYN/story.html?p1=well_TsarnaevTrial_subheadline
http://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/article/2015/01/05/dire-questions-dzhokhar-tsarnaev-trial/
I don't mean to say that in any way are these people in the articles onto something, there is a conspiracy out there about nearly everything, even the Newtown shootings. I was at the marathon that day. I just mean to present to you all sides to an issue, and show how news media can choose to cover it. What is the tone the reporters use? Do they seem to agree, or do they want to present the people in the articles are a little off the beaten path?
I think the way the reporters speak in the articles offers a different look of the Boston Marathon case. They do not specifically attack the conspirators and their views, but simply let the public see how they perceive the Boston Marathon bombing. They seem not to agree, but to shed light on their thoughts.
ReplyDeleteI think the reporters have to report the information in a tone that doesn't pick a side but simply reports the evidence given in these conspiracy theories. It allows people to look at a different view and understand every opinion of the bombing. However I think they do not agree with the theories they are just showing the information.
ReplyDeleteI think the reporters have to use a blunt tone because their job is to just state facts to inform people what is going on. Every reader will have their own opinion depending on what they believe in. I don't think the reporters agree or disagree with anything since they are just doing their job by stating facts about what is going on.
ReplyDeleteThe way the reporters are reporting this information shows no particular side. They are just sharing other information that hasn't been shared with the public yet. The reporters aren't forcing the readers to pick a side to chose rather letting them pick a side on their own.
ReplyDeletei think reporters told their opinion in a good way. It was harsh but at the same time very factual. It allows people to see their point of view without attacking the whole situation. The reporters have to get their information out no matter how it sounds or looks.
ReplyDeleteI feel the reporters did a good job on not picking a side and are not trying to persuade their readers to pick one either. they stated facts about the entire story, they were straight to the point and that's there job.
ReplyDeleteI think this is crazy how these people think that this guy is innocent. I think reporters are just doing there job I don't think they are choosing sides I think they are just informing people on some new information people are going to have there own opinion based on this. I don't think they really agree with what's happening but they are just reporting the information they get
ReplyDeleteAs I was reading this article I could see why people would think the reporters were out to make it seem like the victim was automatically guilty. I saw it as the reporters were just there reporting the information they were given and could report on. I don't think they think if he is guilty or not but I think they are doing a good job not choosing a side.
ReplyDeleteI think the reporters displayed they point of view in a good way. Also having a media source like Facebook backs them up. They are just putting their opinion out there like the media did trying to prove that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev did it. Its not like they are fighting with the jury but they are just trying to see the other side of the situation.
ReplyDeleteThe reporters used a serious tone because it's a very serious cause they're covering with different opinions from people affected and unaffected by this event. The authors want present the people in the articles to show how they were affected by this and what they want to see happen to the boy.
ReplyDeleteI feel as if the reporters are just giving out the information they know. And then afterwards they put in a little bit of their own opinions. But I feel the reporters don't want us to follow their side to the story, They are not making us pick a side to this story, it's our own opinion we need to make.
ReplyDeleteI think the reporters conveyed their point of view in a very good way.The reporters are only using limited information and some of their own opinions. They are just trying to inform us but it was a little too opinionated.
ReplyDeleteI think that the reporters did a great job explaining the "unheard" side of the story. The reporters did not choose a side when when explain the current situation. It is quite detailed and I got to fully understand what each person's story was.
ReplyDeleteI think the reporters were discussing this information in a way that wasn't opinionated, they were simply stating all of the evidence that was given in these cases. By doing this, the reporters allowed the readers to form their own opinions, and therefore choose a side that they agree on.
ReplyDeleteI think the reporters did a good job at staying neutral. By staying neutral it allowed them to state all of the evidence given about these conspiracy theories, now the readers have a different outlook and understanding of the marathon bombing whether they agree with it or not.
ReplyDeleteThe reporters displayed the information they had without using a persuasive tone. Whether they agree with the theories or not, they did a good job at educating their audience with the evidence. Both articles were very informative and allowed readers to form their own opinions regarding the case.
ReplyDeleteIt appeared to me that the reporters tried limiting their own opinion, while just stating facts. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, I found it interesting to see other sides of the story besides the main view given by the media.
ReplyDelete