This commentary from poynter.org “Letter to the editor: Local media didn’t whiff on Flint coverage” by John Hiner focuses on the media’s role in coverage of the Flint water crisis.
In this commentary John Hiner discusses how the flint water crisis has been documented and reported on as early as October 2015, but readership remained low compared to stories about Michigan football or the weather. He also argues that all media could have played a more active role in applying pressure to this story and Flint’s writer story eliciting an earlier response.
I believe the intention of this article was to challenge people to think about what type of media they consume while ignoring issues in the media that involve their government affecting the lives of citizens negatively as well as challenge media’s involvement in making important stories more mainstream. I thought the author of this article did a good job at conveying these things with his use of pathos.
What do you feel was the intent of this article?
Should the author have focused more on the fault of the government dealing with flints water crisis? Or is the media truly to blame for the story not being big sooner?
What would have made this commentary better?