Evaluation of how reporters write to their story...

This particular article was about John McCain's unexpected decision to run for office with Sarah Palin. Now, given the topic of discussion it was relatively difficult to dissect the true narration in comparison with the video. Most of the clips were of the two senators attending public meetings while others were simply the news reporter themselves talking at the camera or “to the people”. Because of the historical significance this combination would have made, I might have added some statistical information regarding the fact that no woman had ever been elected to be vice president or president. The campaigns alone were historically relevant. I'm not sure if a woman has run for either office in the past myself, but I do know that I would have discussed the rarity of that detail. This article was relatively short and it was a special report by CNN immediately after McCain announced it. Still, there was some narration used to help explain Sarah Palin's political history and McCain's interview after announcing he had chosen her. Personally, I would have gone more in depth with Sarah Palin's political history. Also, in this particular report they seemed to repeat the same information a little bit more than necessary. For example, they continued to stress the fact that this was so unexpected. Which is understandable because this is regarding our future leaders of the country, however to the extent that they used it it seemed to almost be distracting in terms of actually taking in all of the information that is being conveyed. I began to almost just focus on how many times they said unexpected rather than listening to the details of the report. Overall, the report wasn't terrible, however the relevance of the story was certainly the more attractive detail.