1.
a) The author is Marshall Kilduff, an editorial writer for the San Francisco Chronicle and other San Francisco Bay Area newspapers. Kilduff is a local who went to San Francisco State University, so he can essentially represent much of San Francisco majority opinion. While San Francisco is a liberal city, the San Francisco Chronicle is distributed to much of California, and like other newspapers like the New York Times, attempts to be as neutral as possible, but can have some liberal bias.
b) The audience includes Bay Area and other California residents, where the newspaper is circulated. It reaches a large range of people, and the newspaper’s circulation represents the 12th largest in the United States. I think it is assumed that the audience is as liberal as those writing the paper itself, on a general scale anyway, with much deviation assumed.
c) Purpose is news media.
d) Relevant, current, valid, balanced, credible, comprehensive
2.
http://www.lexisnexis.com.libezproxy2.syr.edu/us/lnacademic/returnTo.do?returnToKey=20_T7039346996
a) The author is Robert Bridge, editor-in-chief of the Moscow News, the primary English-written newspaper for Moscow and all of Russia. It was started by a socialist, and was approved by the communist government under Josef Stalin during its founding. The paper was one of the first to be critical of Russian establishments during Gorbachev’s glasnost, even though it is fueled by Russian information agencies.
b) The audience is the population of Moscow that speaks English, where the newspaper is distributed in many cafes, newsstands and other establishments, and is sometimes free to its readers. While it is not distributed in America, it caters to some westerners in language but not content.
c) Purpose is news media
d) Relevant, current, credible, valid, biased, limited
Even in the most opposite of political and economic atmospheres, a priority for all countries in the modern world is the desire to be “green” and to respect the environment. In San Francisco, a particularly liberal United States city, the desire to keep parks as sacred environmental oases remains as strong as ever. However, as San Francisco Chronicle writer Marshall Kilduff explains in his article “The Worst Job in the City,” that the upkeep of these parks in San Francisco is an overlooked, difficult, and expanding job that few people in the city are even aware of. In his vivid description of the responsibilities of the Neighborhood Parks Council, which is a “watchdog” of the city’s park system of over 100 park or garden areas. The article is critical of the job the city is doing, by cutting short funding for parks programs and therefore diminishing the city’s support of children and park-lovers. However, it does so while going into the difficulties involved, such as the fact that some park lovers are also “anti-park”, since they feel the parks should be more natural and untouched than constantly upkept landscapes and turf fields. Even with the Neighborhood Parks Council working with the city, the job is very difficult and has little reward, since while the issues are changing (parks are needed for soccer, frisbee, other things that weren’t practiced as much before), the outside world sees them as the same. So while they are seen as “green”, they are upkept with resistance and have difficulty keeping up with the times.
This is juxtaposed with the upkeep of the Moscow Parks system, which itself also maintains more than 100 parks, gardens and botanical gardens. And while the city is intending it or not, the charge for disturbing these green areas can be very high. Moscow News writer Robert Bridge describes the labors of construction workers to build a roofed sports complex (serving purposes of many US parks), but to also fence off every tree and bush during construction. Apparently, the punishment for disturbing or uprooting them is a hefty fine, due to the deference of the “green” concept to bureaucracy that simply fines per plant uprooted. So while the cause is good and toward the support of youth programs and being green by protecting natural areas, the workers have to be extra cautious of the environment in their construction. The companies either need to afford for each tree and shrub they uproot to be planted somewhere else in the city, or pay the fine of $1000 per tree. The author adds that this doesn’t afford for the trees that had to be killed to support the paper trail of this bureaucracy. While the source is credible, it is very editorial, and pros and cons to the issue are not immediately clear due to the anti-bureaucratic opinions of the author. But one thing that is clear is that there are difficulties maintaining “greenness” of parks in two countries that are polar opposites in their political views, no matter how the problem is approached.
Hi Michael. I was surprised to see you work with these two sources, as I am a bit confused as to how they relate to your essay about the turfs. I am wondering, I suppose, how you will be using these sources. Perhaps, when you complete Freewrite #5, that will become clear.
I couldn’t help but notice that after you say that SF paper is liberal you also say that it is balanced. Just something to think about….
One thing you will need to keep in mind as you write your essay is how much time to devote to each source in relation to how important the claim that evolves out of this source use is for your overall purpose. For instance, in a 10-12 page page, the paragraphs above would take almost a full page, I imagine. A question you will have to ask yourself is how much space do I want to take up to prove this one point. Do I need to put two sources into conversation for this minor point or should I devote more time to other points?
Seems here that the last claim that emerges from this source work is not quite justified for all the space you give above. But maybe, I am just not seeing clearly how this source work fits into your overall essay yet????/