The Supreme Court and a New Discrimination Case

"Discrimination Case Raises Old Issues" by Adam Liptak, The New York Times, February 22, 2010

This article discusses the current Supreme Court discrimination case. Liptak seeks to explain how two recent Supreme Court decisions have established two contradicting precedents, that will make deciding this case a difficult task. Liptak explores the two previous cases, one of which deals directly with discrimination, and the other that deals with statutes of limitations.

The article uses a lot of legal jargon and discusses the recent issues in the case. The article is clearly not written for any old audience, but instead seeks to inform those who already have an understand of the Legislative system and the underling issues involved in the case. The article frames the case as a debate between the two sides, one of which, the article implies, will be more "right."

The article does not offer a clear outline of both sides of the case, but rather discusses the alleged discrimination, what should have been done to fix the problem before it went to court, and how the Supreme Court has created a difficult situation for themselves with their past rulings.

Note: I wrote this a few weeks ago and have just posted it today.

Evidence in the Casey Anthony Murder Trial

"Casey Anthony's Defense Team Wants Some Potential Evidence Thrown Out" Fox News March 9, 2010

This article states that Casey Anthony's defense lawyers want some of the potential evidence thrown out of the case, arguing that it will only be used to make the jury view her in a negative light. Anthony is being charged with murdering her young daughter in 2008.

The article is very sensationalistic; it begins by asking, "Remember the frantic 911 call made by Casey's mom Cindy back in July 2008?" This is sensationalistic and informal and does not give me the impression that this article is reliable news (it is from Fox, so I did not expect different, but it is interesting to see an example of their style of journalism). Furthermore, I had to reread the article twice to try and absorb more facts about the case because by the end of the article I still did not feel that I had a full idea of what the case was about and what the prosecution might argue or what else the defense might be using as evidence. The article did not seem to address any of the "why"s of the case, and only made simple claims about what the defense wanted. They thought that the evidence made Anthony look like an unfit mother, promiscuous girl, etc. and the article did not suggest, or hint, or anything that the reader should see her in any other way.

The lack of a complete story made the article very biased. The phrasing of the article, as well, made it implicit that the only way to think of the defense lawyers' requests were as suspicious activity intended to protect a murderous party girl. Fox included a picture of Anthony with a black man that was apparently taken at a party. The article also referred to her by her first name. I found both things to be suspect and I think the article is painting the picture that the defense was trying to keep from influencing the jury. I think it this article is not only informal (read: unprofessional), but also clearly not "Fair and Balanced News" (Fox's slogan).

Supreme Court and Campaign Finance Restrictions

"Supreme Court Rolls Back Campaign Finance Restrictions" from The Huffington Post, 1/21/10

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/21/supreme-court-rolls-back_n_431227.html

This article discusses the recent 5 to 4 Supreme Court decision to reduce restrictions on corporate spending in federal campaigns. The article discusses whether campaign funding by corporations should be considered a First Amendment right, in that it could be seen as an issue of free speech. Democrats including President Obama were outraged by the decision. They expressed that the Supreme Court has allowed big money, like oil, pharmaceuticals, banks, etc. to take over our elections with their decisions. Obama stated that the influx of special interest money in campaigns will drown out the voices of everyday Americans.

The article does a good job at educating the reader about both sides of the story and gives quotes from people instead of simply summarizing. I think that the article could have educated and informed the reader more if it gave more information about campaign finance issues in the past.

The article has counters attached that show how many people have posted this article on their personal pages on various social networking sites. It also has a comments section so that anyone who reads the article can offer and opinion. The Huffington Post is a blog and is therefore different than a real newspaper, which might have more people to please or a larger conglomerate to take into consideration. While a liberal opinion is clearly being conveyed - the article states, "The decision could unleash a torrent of corporate-funded attack ads in upcoming elections" - the article allows for feedback from readers and offers opinions from both Republicans and Democrats.

Note: I first wrote this entry on good, old fashioned paper in February, I have just added it to my blog today!