The Boston Globe published an article today by Jon Chesto about President-elect Trump’s plans to change tax codes and how it could effect US citizens.
All in all, this article is a good example of simple, effective reporting. The beginning of the article gets to the point of the story quickly. The bulk of the story is spent going over, one at a time, different policies and changes that a Trump administration has said they will try to make to American tax code.
There’s no clear reason why each example is gone over in the order that the author does it in. One point the author mentions, how several tax deductions that might be removed are those that have benefited Mass., doesn’t come until halfway through the story. By placing this part of the story closer to the top, the author could’ve provided proximity and impact for the reader sooner.
Another problem I see with the story is the length of the paragraphs. They are all similar lengths, and are all on the longer side for a news story graph. The repetitious length and structure of paragraphs might prove exhausting or boring for some readers.
The article does a great job getting varied quotes and using them well. Their placement in the story makes sense and they provide opinions and views from both sides of the argument, as well as opinions from those who stay bipartisan to it. Having both opinionated and some unbiased voices in the story is enjoyable to read.
Obviously, since the election last week, the relevance of the story is clear. News outlets are starting to move away from stories about the elections to stories about what’s to come. Now that we have our president-elect, the more important news is not why he was elected, it’s what’s going to change, how does this effect the reader. This article is a clear example of that.
It’s clear that the Boston Globe is working to stay impartial in its reporting by giving both sides to the argument, which I think is important now more than after since the election.
The article doesn’t have a traditional lead, but I believe that’s because it isn’t covering an event or a single thing that happened. It’s about policy changes that could be coming, and when that’s considered, the lead in the first sentence is more recognizable.
The author did a good job getting varied opinions on an important, divisive topic and providing an interesting reading experience. I think this is a good article.