In the Huffington Post Article, “Native Americans Bring Dakota Pipeline Protest to Trump’s Doorstep,” the author reports on the Native Nations March, a four day march that culminated on Friday, that was organized in response to the President’s advancement of the pipeline and to stand for native sovereignty.
The story features interviews of a member of the Northern Cheyenne Tribe in Montana, a member of Nebraska’s Omaha tribe, and a supporter of Native American advocacy group. Overall, I appreciated how the author incorporated multimedia into the story, with videos, action photos, and live tweets. In my opinion, this added depth to the story, enabling readers to get a real sense of the emotion and anger of the protesters.
Still, there were some areas in which I think the article was lacking, such as in contextualizing the protest. For example, the details of the pipeline, such as the cost and location ($3.8 billion and 1,172 miles), were not given until just before the kicker. Why do you think the author made this decision in structure? How do you think a story covering about a protest may be written differently from other events or topics that may be covered? While the article included quotes from protesters and Donald Trump, there were no quotes from politicians who may have attended. What other sources would you have liked to see included?