Battle Company Is Out There

1. Does the writer hold your attention through a long article? If she does, how did she do it? If not, why?

Honestly, the article didn’t hold much of my attention. I found myself just scanning through it the first time, and then forcing myself to read it in its entirety the second time only because it needs to be read in its entirety to properly answer the second and third questions. I find the subject of Afghanistan and the insurgence old news and in my point of view this article doesn’t really give us any new information about what’s happening over there and as to why the Americans are still trying to "smoke 'em out of their caves".
Also, being highly opposed to the war (to any war) reading this made me cringe. It is written with a very western point of view (“And by the way, hadn’t the boy noticed that the bad guys always start shooting first?”) somehow championing what the American government is doing, making them look like the “good guys”. This made me lose not just my interest, but my appetite as well.

2. Quote the most vivid and vigorous sentences in this feature.

A sudden wail pierced the night sky. It was Slasher, an AC-130 gunship, firing bullets the size of Coke bottles. Flaming shapes ricocheted all around the village. Kearney was in overdrive. The soldiers back at the KOP were radioing in that the drone was tracking 10 men near the tree line. Yarnell was picking up insurgent radio traffic. “They’re talking about getting ready to hit us,” someone said. The pilot could see five men, one entering a house, then, no, some were in the trees, some inside, and then, multiple houses. He wanted confirmation — were all these targets hostile? Did Kearney have any collateral-damage concerns? Cursing, Kearney told them to engage the men outside but not to hit the house. The pilots radioed back that men had just run inside. No doubt there would be a family. Caroon reminded Kearney that Slasher had only enough fuel to stay in position for 10 more minutes.

3. Write this feature as straight news, 100 words maximum.

Battle Company of the 173rd Airborne Brigade Combat Team, led by Capt. Dan Kearney, is in war with Korengalists in the Korengal Valley, Afghanistan.

As reported by the Human Rights Watch, NATO has killed 350 civilians as of last year via air bombings, compared with the insurgents’ 438, resulting to Korengalists siding with the insurgents. American soldiers are building schools and bridges in hopes to gain the much needed support from Korengalists to find insurgents in the Korengal Valley, who they consider “ghosts”, specializing in ambush attacks.

The Tragedy of Britney Spears

1. How does this article differ from the usual celebrity and gossip features? Does this article elevate itself from the typical celebrity and gossip feature?

The article differs greatly from the run in the mill gossip because, put simply, it’s been written and published for Rolling Stone Magazine, and said magazine is known to do top notch stories about musicians (which could be argued of course, both on “top notch stories” and Britney being a “musician”, but I digress). This is not Page Six. But among other things, the article is well documented and written, and it does not exploit Britney Spears – which is a feat in itself since the three ring circus of events in the troubled star’s life screams for exploitation. The article was fair and dwelled on facts and didn’t bank on Ms. Spear’s picture going commando. So yes, it is pretty much safe to say that this article elevated itself from the typical celeb gossip feature, and done so by sticking to facts rather than hearsay, by vividly painting actual information rather than blogging about Brit’s Icarus story with her two cents, and not just recreating what we seen on TV and read on other, much less classy publications.

2. How does the writer hold the reader's interest about a subject matter that is over exposed?

Vanessa Grigoriadis has done so by not just merely focusing on what is happening, but by also giving ample information on how (notice that it’s how, not why – no conclusion jumping) it happened, giving the readers a back story rather than jumping right in the fray of all the hoopla. She also wrote it masterfully, baiting us on every paragraph, making us wanting to read more. She made it suspenseful enough for the readers, offering different angles to a beaten down story.

3. How does the writer appeal to readers who are not admirers or sympathizers of this celebrity?

The writer did so by name dropping known celebrities, going as far as comparing Britney Spears to the US president. Furthermore, she shed new light to the story and played with the people’s assumptions (may it be negative or otherwise) with subtle use of known facts about her life and the people surrounding it. The story was juicy enough for Britney’s detractors and managed not to be an exploitation of the coming and goings of said pop star.

4. What voice does the writer use and does it work for the magazine's target audience?

The writer used the first person narrative on most parts. She also utilized a third person perspective in some. It works well because it’s direct, with the right amount of suspense, and keeps the reader glued to the article.
(Note: As for the magazine actually reaching its target audience is up for debate. We remember the time when Rolling Stone Magazine used to write about real bands, about being on the road, about the music, rather than pop stars and their tribulations with the press – their downward spiral. But then again what are rockstars? Mere pop icons that is subject for worship or ridicule. With that, the article worked, if their target audience is the ones clamoring for the Hollywood side of the story, focusing on the artist’s life rather than the music they make. )