Article Review

Summary

'Vultures' or Reporters? After shooting witnesses hit with media requests. by Paul Farhi from the Washington Post, Is an article about whether or not journalists are 'okay' to continue intruding into peoples lives that have gone through tragedy. The author touches three main points of this topic: the tragedy in question (the recent Oregon college shooting), the ethics of asking questions, and the fact that a journalist's job is to ask questions and spread important information.

The author appears has points for both sides of the argument but did not convey a clear final point. The author's strength is addressing both sides of the argument well and using very good and credible sources. However, their weakness was defending one side of the argument. After reading the argument the reader should have a clear understanding of the author's point, while this article left the reader with no clear answer.

Critique 

The author did not have a clear point to end the article but both sides were addressed thoroughly. They used credible sources with convincing evidence, they just happened to have this for both sides of the argument. For me as a journalistic videographer this sparked some thoughts. overall this was a well written article with good evidence and provoked thoughts, but it did not have a clear central idea.