This Boston Globe article starts with a human focus and expands to the larger issue of a proposed bottle bill. I thought that the author moved well from the particular case of the Lopez family to the low-income community in general. Coverage of politics is easily bogged down by rhetoric and abstractions. The outcomes of political decisions are usually more engaging to the public than their creation because the outcomes are specific and humanized. Do you think that the author was successful in creating human interest? Were you engaged by this lede? What audience do you think this is intended for? Ben Freed mentioned to us that it isn’t necessary to represent both/all sides if there is a consensus on an issue. As the author highlighted the supporters of the bottle bill, did you feel he represented the opposition fairly? Do you think he meant to prove (with the study’s results, anecdotally) that there is a consensus on the benefits of a bottle bill?
In the video accompanying the article, the journalist doesn’t edit out his own questions. What effect did that have on your perception of the video? Of the reporting? Should the video’s narrative have been more structured? Overall, what did the video add to the article?