The first article was repetitive with two or more words, such as ordinary and citizen. It was annoying after the first five times. I believe that the ordinary citizen reporter did take a risk but nothing seemed too extraordinary to me. And for some reason people mentioned in the article couldn’t grasp the concept that he was used to that sort of thing because of his background. If reporters have an issue with an ordinary citizen reporter having better reporting skills then so be it, I could care less.
The second article was just as annoying. If Ho wanted to take some pictures let the guy take some pictures. He obviously didn’t stop anyone from getting out of the flight to pause and take a picture. The article makes it sound as if he stood right in the middle of the existing route to take pictures of people exiting or what have you. The other pictures were of the outside so I don’t see how he interrupted anything there.
If the point was to show how the two stories were contrasting in which one picture-taking citizen was praised and the other was blamed then it’s ridiculous. Both stories themselves are contrasting because one takes place in a building and another takes place in an airplane. One with many exist and one with maybe two.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Yes the first article may have been a bit repetitive but it served a point. It was a devastating event that many people will never forget. I disagree that the civilian didn't take any risk because obviously he took a risk by being there at the scene. He put his life in danger to capture video footage of the maniac. I don't think it matter what background you a from a gun will kill a human no matter what. I don't want to be to negative so I agree the person was at small risk.
ReplyDelete