By starting the piece with a question, the broadcaster immediately grabs my attention. In less than a minute, the listener hears who is suing about what and has a mental picture of the scene where John Walker Lindh is serving time in federal prison.
Although the piece utilizes several expert sources, it manages to provide greater context for each quote without complicating a listener’s understanding of the news story. It makes the news story simple enough to understand in a complicated tension between safety and infringing on an inmate’s right to practice his religion.
I particularly appreciated how the clip explained the government’s argument, burden of proof, and possible alternatives to barring Lindh’s right under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
The final comment
about how Lindh’s religion turned him against the United States, a country
which he now is seeking protection to practice his religion is interesting
because it forces us to consider the irony and complexity of what it all means.
Lastly, I found
this piece to be exceptional because it informed without pushing one agenda
over the next. This clip forced me to think and re-think the issue, despite an
easy grasp of the situation. I am still not sure which side of the argument I
would support and I believe that speaks to the level of objectivity achieved in
this piece. 
No comments:
Post a Comment