It was a couple of weeks ago when Egpyt governement’s started to crumble after a public outcry for reform. Instability has plauged the country as people want certain parts of the government. The article talks about how Vice President of Egypt, Omar Sulieman, has started to make changes concerning the politics of the nation. They are pushing to become more of a democratic nation, as people want more freedom the criticise the governmemt. Not only that, they want the ability to have more of a say in the government, pushing to a more American model of governement to make sure everyone has a voice.
This article was released a couple days ago, but the original press release is untractable. Because it has been such a large topic, there have been so many articles on the Denver post that it is impossible to track the original press statement. Since the issue is concerning a nations state, Coverage surrounding the topic is vast. When looking at other newspaper articles involving the Egypt dispute, like the USA Today, the companies try to incorporate corporate advertisements in the paper. Showing that these enterprises had some interest in the topic. If two different sources are capturing the same news headline, than they do have the right to say whatever they want. The corporate companies from one paper can’t criticize what is being said in another news source. it can both help and hurt the companies advertising and reputation. One person could read another source and have an opposing view on the situation and take their actions out on the company that sponsored the article, resulting in a decline of popularity. the situation is reversible as well and can be viewed in many different lights. In the Denver Post article, i do not see signs of separation between editorials and business operations. the only prominent reason is that it is such a wide topic, that companies are willing to do everything to get their name on an article like this because of its recent popularity in the media. Within the article itself, there were no specific bias’ displayed, but there is a fight for space. The issue has been in the press for quite some time and is losing public interest. It was a race of the companies, and some were more fortunate than others.
I found an article on the denverpost.com that was about Shawn Hunter, who is the former president of AEG. This news story was about Hunter joining Colorado’s Quiznos Pro challenge cycling race as the co-chair. The article describes his background dealing with sports and a quote from him that is about his excitement for the race. I thought that the article was well written and used the information from the original press release efficiently, which I was able to find through digitaljournal.com. Also, the contents in the article were more geared towards editorial rather than advertising. The journalist for this piece was able to distinguish between what would be beneficial for the story and what was just company self-promotion. In the press release, it included a lot of information about the race, Hunter, and Quiznos itself. However in the article, it focuses on Hunter with minimal information about the race and none about Quiznos. Through this, it proved that this piece was more about editorial content than advertising because it did not discuss the company. Instead it focused on the main subject, Hunter, and the secondary subject, the race. In the beginning of the article, it mentioned that Hunter was the former executive vice- president of the Colorado’s Avalanche and Nuggets. Initially, I believed that this was unnecessary information about Hunter because I did not see how this was related to the race. However a few paragraphs later in the article, it is stated that because of Hunter’s previous jobs, he is able to work with local sponsors to secure a national TV package and connect with organizing committees. Although this appeared to be useless and kind of self-promoting information, it turned out that this is beneficial for the race. So when comparing the press release to the article, this is not a violation of the editorial and business operation.
An article that was recently published in the Denver Post regards the recent outlawing of synthetic marijuana, or more commonly known as “Spice”. I compared two different sources for this topic; both the Denver Post and “Legal High Reviews”, which are contrasting point of views on the matter. Both of these articles are very informative on the issue and its recent illegalization, but come from very different POVs. The Denver Post is speaking from an un-biased stance, writing about the DEA and its new policy. The Legal High Reviews website is a site created to educate people on legal highs, and happened to be one of the first dated sources and began to discuss the ban. This site’s intended audience is directed at the marijuana user. The name of the article is “Why Spice Smoking Blend is Banned”. What I found most interesting was that I learned quite a bit in both articles. Jessica Fender, the writer for the Denver Post who wrote this article, talks about the DEA and how it listed chemical compounds under ‘Schedule 1’, the most restrictive classification. It is said that the agency and the U.S. Health and Human Services Department continue to look at whether Spice should be permanently banned. On the Legal High website, the writer, who goes simply by Ryan, writes as a user speaking to other users, as he compares spice to cannabis and talks about the similarities in the feelings after smoking. He shares that: “Today, Spice is considered a medicinal product and it is illegal to import, sell or market. New Zealand, Austria, Germany, and France have made Spice illegal for a long time and the United States has been regulating it. Now the product is completely banned.” While this source is clearly biased, it seems to provide just as factual of information as the article in the Denver Post.
As I was surfing on the New York Times website I stumbled upon a story involving press releases that captured my attention because it seemed so outrageous.
On January 28th 2011 Allstate Insurance company released the following statement. ”
Illinois-based Allstate Insurance said its analysis of car accidents related to astrology found Virgos were the most likely to crash vehicles.
The company said its comparison of 2010 claims data against the revised astrological calendar found Virgos were involved in 211,650 collisions last year, 700 percent more than the 26,833 crashes involving Scorpios, the safest drivers on the zodiac calendar.
Allstate said Ophiuchus, the “new” sign added in the revised calendar, was the second-safest sign for motorists, followed by Cancer, Aquarius, Libra, Aries, Capricorn, Gemini, Sagittarius, Pisces, Taurus and Leo.”
This statement was highly criticized for numerous reasons. The primary one being that astrological signs should have nothing to do with insurance. Customers became quite angry, and four days later Allstate issued another press release that apologized for their previous judgements.
This press release captured the attention of not only numerous insurance customers, but that of the New York Times writer Gary Antonick. Following the two press releases issued by Allstate he analyzed what is going on and what information is behind the claims of Allstate. His method for doing this was reaching out to the news consumers and breaking the single stream flow of news. The reader’s interactions were posted that included the best facts and answers. Also, a chart showing the astrological sign, the birthrates, personality traits, and number of accidents in the year 2010 is included at the end of the story.
Although Allstate clearly finds some sort of truth behind the studies performed relating astrological signs to driver safety, the public reception of the release caused an uproar which forced Allstate to apologize. I found this interesting that such a prominent company as Allstate that should be known for reliability would release such information that is not strongly supported. Even if the numbers and the personality traits seem to support their claims.
After much anticipation, Peter Forsberg has rejoined the Colorado Avalanche. On February 7th, 2011, Forsberg announced that “if nothing went wrong in practice, [I] would talk to Greg. Later in the day on February 6th, Peter Forsberg talked to Avs’ General Manager, Greg Sherman to draft and sign a contract. Forsberg spent three years out of the NHL, but has now returned to Denver. He helped to win the Stanley Cup in 1996 and again in 2001. Needless to say, Denverites and avid Avalanche fans are ecstatic for Forsberg’s return. The Associated Press released and modified it’s article all weekend as the fans’ excitement swelled. The article, “Peter Forsberg’s Avalanche debut may be delayed by visa issues,” by Terri Frei on February seventh, suggested different information than the Associated Press. It says that Forsberg has indeed signed the contract, but has yet to be allowed to travel with the team due to Visa issues. Forsberg has spent parts of the last three years in Sweden, his home nation. He now is lacking an American Visa, a necessity to travel with the team. Colorado coach Joe Sacco and Forsberg are both hopeful that the necessary papers will be available in the next few days, however. The team is hoping that he will be able to join them in Phoenix later this week. Regardless, Peter Forsberg is definitely back with the Avalanche and will be welcomed back to Denver by eager fans. The article by the Associated Press was well written and was very detailed. It was more interesting to read and seemed more valid. The quotes seemed to not be skewed or infused with the author’s bias, but The Denver Post article seemed more up-to-date. They had the latest news on Forsberg’s status as a member of the team.