The project options listed below ask you to demonstrate your grasp of the concepts of Unit One by applying them to a news report (or reports) of a recent event and, in the process, to validate your judgment of that report or of the extended coverage of a single story by the same news publication or broadcast production company. You will choose one of the listed projects and submit it through the website Drop Box no later than September 29.

1. Evaluate the quality of a news report of some significant recent event by applying relevant semantic concepts, including the following:

a. Reports are verifiable. (How did the writer verify his/her information? Did the writer provide sources, for example? Were the sources clearly identified, and what enabled you—or prevented you—to trust the sources?)
b. Reports exclude, as far as possible, inferences, judgments, affective connotations, loaded words and other forms of language meant to mislead (or that could mislead) the reader. (When such semantic tendencies are discernible, has the reporter attributed them to one or more of his sources? Or are they the products of the reporter’s own words? Has the reporter offered factual verification of his/her inferences and judgments? Could they have been avoided by simply stating the facts? For example, it may be a valid opinion to write “the crowd reacted with loud enthusiasm,” but could that be supported or replaced by facts? )
c. Reports avoid slanting—the use of illustration, evidence, citation of sources (and omission of any contrary facts or quotations) that lead you to conclusions you suspect may be the writer’s judgment.
d. Contexts must be considered in judging the reliability of the report. Is that an issue within your chosen article?
e. Has the headline signaled a judgment or attitude of the publication (not necessarily the writer’s)?

2. Trace the continuing coverage of a single story in the same news publication or broadcast production over the course of several days to evaluate the quality of that coverage based on tendencies of respect for (or violation of) the same semantic concepts itemized above.

3. There are two parts to this project option and both parts are required: a) Using the activity suggested in Chapter 3 of Language in Thought and Action (page 24, first paragraph after the sub-head “Inferences”), write a factual report of roughly 400 words, one that excludes all inferences and judgments, of a recent event at WCC. (See other specifications provided on cited page and paragraph.) b) Using same information and same sources, re-write the article with inferences (yours), words selected to imply favorable or unfavorable conclusions, omitting facts or loading up sources for quotations that help slant the article. No facts or information should be invented to create this second version. (Note: for two bonus points, submit the first version to the news editor of the campus newspaper, The Viking News. I will alert them to the possibility of students in this class submitting articles and get confirmation from her when they receive one. The editors may be able to provide the event to cover with their own deadline.)