The same thing over and over again....

"Sen. Charles Grassley has won Senate approval for legislation that would require the Coralville rainforest project to raise $50 million in non-federal money before being granted $50 million in Department of Energy money."

"Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, plans to hold back a federal allowance to the rain forest project until it earns more money of its own."

The first of the two articles was written, in general, by an anonymous Citizen-Press reporter. Adam Pracht wrote the second article. This is one of the better examples I have come across that shows how a personal narrative can really make people think differently.

The first article is an informative article talking about the federal funds money and how that 50 million has to be matched with non-federal money. There being little narrative in the article, actually gives people an idea of the problem at hand. With the second article, Pracht actually creates a more one-sided story using most of the information form the first article, by adding his narrative. Pracht gives the information but then goes into how the decision affects the community. The one-sidedness comes when Adam reports the views the city councilors have on Grassley's decision. He uses councilors that have already criticized Grassley and the Rainforest project. Pracht loses the objectivity that the first article conceived by adding a narrative.

We can see that adding one's personal narrative can make all the difference informing the public. Pracht should give both sides, yes give opposition to Grassley, but also tell us who supports him and what they think about Grassley's decision. The Press-Citizen needs to write more informative articles like the first article and leave articles like Pracht's in the OP/ED section.







Adam Pracht Iowa City Press-Citizen
http://www.press-citizen.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051109/NEWS01/51109009
http://www.press-citizen.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051111/NEWS01/511110305