Press Release/Crime Story Assignment

EXTORTION/Caleb Waldron 1

ASSEMBLYMAN PLEADS GUILTY FOR ATTEMPTED EXTORTION

By Caleb Waldron

KALAMAZOO, Mich., On October 19^th former state Assemblyman Alfred E. Steele pleaded guilty to attempted extortion related to the guidance of public contracts, according to U.S. Attorney Christopher J. Christie.

The New Jersey Assemblyman pled guilty to accepting $15,500 in bribes from an FBI undercover insurance brokerage company in exchange for official assistance in the direction of public contracts and further payment via a portion of the insurance brokerage’s revenue.

Mr. Steele, age 53, was arrested on September 6 along with 10 other public officials and one private citizen for one-count criminal Information charging attempted extortion under color of official. Prior to his arrest, Mr. Steele had arranged and attended meetings between public officials within several municipalities, including his own, and

representatives of the FBI undercover brokerage company. The defendants involved in

the scandal include officials from the Paterson Housing Authority, the City of Passaic, the City of Orange, and the Paterson School District. After his arrest, Mr. Steele resigned both his job as a Passaic County undersheriff and his seat in the New Jersey Assembly.

The case was brought before U.S. district judge Anne E. Thomson. The crime carries a maximum statutory penalty of 20 years in prison with a $250,000 fine. Mr. Steele faces 37-46 months in federal prison and currently remains free on $200,000 bond pending sentence. Christie credited the investigation’s success to special agents of the FBI under the direction of Special Agent in Charge Weysan Dun. Also credited were investigators and prosecutors with the Atlantic County Prosecutor’s Office under Prosecutor Theodore F.L. Housel.

-30-

Source: FBI press release via: http://newark.fbi.gov/dojpressrel/2007/nk101907.pdf

Critique on New York Times "Death Penalty Tests a Church as It Mourns"

The following is a critique of the October 28th New York Times story "Death Penalty Tests a Church as It Mourns" by Alison Leigh Cowan, accessible through the link: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/28/nyregion/28cheshire.html?ref=todayspaper

CRITIQUE/Caleb Waldron 1

CRITIQUE ON NEY YORK TIMES ARTICLE “DEATH PENALTY TESTS A CHURCH AS IT MOURNS”

By Caleb Waldron

This article lacks structure, eloquence, and detail, starting with the title. “Death Penalty Tests a Church as it Mourns” is confusing and unnecessarily convoluted. “As is mourns” is superfluous; something like “Death Penalty Tests mourning church” would grab the reader’s attention more, and draw a stronger connection between the death penalty and the church’s morning. Otherwise, they seem to be independent variables.

In terms of eloquence, this article smacks of speculation with questionable support. Phrases like “it might have been expected” and “they think/thought that” litter the work; there’s no sense of the concrete, or of actual facts. The article seems to consist entirely of hearsay and supposition. What’s more, the crux of the conflict within this article isn’t explicitly outlined. There’s mention of parishioners’ reluctance to publicly condemn the death penalty, but there’s no mention of their motivations for doing so.

There isn’t a single sentence in this piece that outlines the basic moral issue involved. As such, there’s no sense of overall context with this piece. The reader’s left stranded with the information that a church is conflicted over issues related to the death penalty, but isn’t given the proper tools to apply that conflict to their own lives or surrounding issues.

In regards to the overall context of the situation, there’s no sense of opposing viewpoints in this article. The sources are all parishioners who struggle with their own individual perspectives on the moral validity of the death penalty. But again, with no sense of larger context, the reader feels stranded from the piece.

Overall, this article relies on supposition and implication in such a way that creates a sterile, alien style.

-30-

Obituary Critique

The following is the title of an obituary posted on the New York Times website titled "Nolan Herndon, Navigator in '42 Raid, Dies at 88," which can be accessed at http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/12/us/12herndon.html?ref=todayspaper

I find that this obituary’s focus the deceased’s military service detracts from conveying a sense of personality. Indeed, besides Mr. Herndon’s role as a navigator-bombardier there’s little to no reference of any other event related to his 88 years of life. The article further compartmentalizes the man’s life by emphasizing a single event within his career, known as the “Doolittle Raid.” While this was no doubt an influential and life-changing event within his life, there’s no sense of context- the reader gets no sense of what led him to engage in the event, or how it affected him in later life. There’s mention that he received the Medal of Honor, but nothing that connects him to the incident as a whole or distinguishes him from his fellow airmen. In essence, the reader feels completely disconnected from the deceased- the same obituary very well might have been written for any of the other 4 airmen who engaged in the “Doolittle Raid.” This is less an obituary than a cold, impersonal history lesson.

A review of the New York Times report titled:

Watchdog of C.I.A. Is Subject of C.I.A. Inquiry

My review is as follows:

The first half of the article explains how Director Hayden’s investigation of Inspector General Helgerson can be viewed as counter-productive and outrageous. The second half of the article establishes why officials at the C.I.A are dissatisfied with the actions of Inspector General Helgerson. On the surface, this piece seems to provide an unbiased and evenly-balanced report of a conflict within the C.I.A between its Director and its Inspector General. But through a subtle orchestration of quotes and facts, the writer of this article conveys a sense of dissatisfaction and alarm over the actions of the Director of the C.I.A. These are my reasons:

1) The first indication of this subtle criticism is that while the title of the piece portrays the Inspector General as being the focus of the article, the actual name of the Inspector General isn’t mentioned until the third paragraph. The Director, however, is mentioned in the first paragraph. I understand that ledes and opening paragraphs are meant to convey as much important information to the reader as possible with the shortest amount of words- so I find that this article’s focus to be on the Director of the C.I.A, and not the Inspector General. This emphasis encourages the reader to question the actions of the Director.

2) Right before the article provides possible reasons for dissatisfaction with the Inspector General, there’s mention of the alternative and arguably preferable methods of complaint. This order of paragraphs leads to a skepticism towards critics of the Inspector General- while there’s an established disgruntlement towards the official, there’s no sense of justification for the investigation. In essence, the writer’s lack of evidence in support of the investigation itself, compared to the in-depth analysis provided by the first paragraph, subtly leans the report against the actions of the Director.

3) I find that the quotes of the first section are more powerful and well-worded than the quotes from the second section, which lends credence to the argument against the investigation. What’s more, the only ‘backed’ sources in this article are found in the first section- which lends more credence to their argument.

4) A paragraph found on the first page describes the firing of Mary O. McCarthy and the work of Mr. Helgerson in the investigation of officials. While no direct link between the two incidents is drawn, their inclusion in the same paragraph creates a sense of underhandedness on the part of the Director of the C.I.A.

5) The only concrete quote that ‘supports’ actions of the C.I.A Director is from John A. Rizzo, which states that “Director Hayden has done a lot of things to convince the operators that he’s looking out for them, and putting the I.G. back in its place is part of this.” But I find that this quote to be a subtle criticism of the Director- the wording ‘to convince’ could be interpreted as an attempt to fool others, or to convey a message that isn’t true. The choice of wording creates a sense of ambiguity that leans towards criticism.

In sum, this article criticizes the actions of the Director of the C.I.A without the use of an explicit confrontation or imposition of beliefs. This is conveyed especially well in the last paragraph, which describes the purpose of Inspector General as being ‘independent,’ after conveying the CIA’s desire to keep the situation contained within itself- thereby creating a sense of contradiction and highlighting a sense of skepticism towards the C.I.A.

Link to the story: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/11/washington/12intel.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&ref=todayspaper

Assignment from page 181 of "Writing and Reporting":

The Connecticut State Police Department banned hand-held radar guns yesterday due to concerns of a possible link with cancer, according to police spokesman Adam Berluti. The police departmnent’s ban on hand-held radar guns was ordered as a precaution while researchers study the possible link between cancer and long-term exposure to the radiation waves emitted by the device. “The feeling here is to err on the side of caution until more is known about the issue,” Berluti said. “The whole situation is under review.” The move is considered to be the first of its kind in a police agency, and came two months after three police officers in Connecticut filed workers’ compensation claims, saying that they developed cancer from using hand-held radar guns. While the ban affects 70 radar guns, which will be withdrawn from service, state troopers will continue to use radar units with transmitters mounted on the outside of their cruisers.