My question for this week was inspired by the Washington Post article, Obama administration issues major rewrite of forest rules by Julie Eilperin, January 26.
The nut graph of this article emphasizes the infrequency of changes to forest management rules, and the body of the article contains in-depth coverage of various parties’ responses to the new guidelines. However, there’s not much straightforward comparison of the content of the old rules and the new rules, other than what we can infer from the opinions that Eilperin’s sources give.
It seems that Eilperin assumed that her audience would be more interested in responses to the guidelines than in the content of the guidelines. Do you agree that when covering government guidelines of niche relevance for a broader audience, it’s more important to cover reactions to the guidelines than the content of the guidelines themselves? Or do you think this article could be strengthened by the inclusion of some explanation of what’s in the guidelines? As the article stands, Eilperin could have written it without reading the new rules at all. Was it prudent for Eilperin defer to experts’ analyses of the guidelines, or does it come off as lazy?
Is there anything else you think Eilperin could have added to increase our understanding of the release of the new guidelines? Do you think she did a good job of capturing our interest? A lot of different issues were raised in the article – did you find that they were sufficiently explained, effectively utilized to pique interest, and appropriate to the audience of Washington Post readers?
I’m looking forward to reading your responses!