Crooks and Liars, Competent Content 2

So this week I wanted to delve more narrowly into the content of the same blog Crooks and Liars. Maybe I'll ask myself some different questions and give you a more definite reason as to why I like this certain blog.

I guess first I wanted to start out writing about what makes me like a blogs content? Well first of all, I like news blogs, obviously since I write one. But in terms of another blog, unless its a subject I'm extremely interested in, I don't really want to read a blog like mine where silliness and semi-obnoxiousness takes away from the cold hard facts of the news. I really content myself in learning about what is going on in the country.

Secondly, I like a blog where each sentence and paragraph leads you into the next in an easy-to-read fashion. I really find it annoying when a blogger and/or person I'm even talking to will be saying something about the War in Iraq and then without discretion to my eyes and mind, starts talking about what kind of underwear they are wearing.

Next, in the simplest form, if you aren't spelling words correctly and your grammar is awful, I'm just not going to give your blog the time of day. I know that my blogs probably aren't perfect in spelling but I do try. To those who don't try, you need a kick in the ass.

There are some other things that make me like the content of a blog but let me furnish those ideas when I talk about this blog.

So my intention right now is to carefully read to posts at this blog site by two different authors and go deeper into their content then I did before.

The first post I read is by Susie Madrak, called For $503 a Year, Members of Congress Have a Top-Notch Hospital On Call in the Capitol. But They Don't Want Government Care? Really my one and only qualm with this post is the lengthiness of the title. I think she could have shortened it up a bit, maybe added a punch to it to draw readers in.

Otherwise, the post opens up with a video from youtube showing three republican congressional representatives giving there reasons why they do not want the government to take over or change health care. I thought this was a very good choice because

1) I can give this video 1 minute of my time and know what she is talking about
2) it gave me faces as to who she was talking about, which I thought made it more memorable
(personable is not the right word here)
3) she can then dive right in to the news-related facts

After the video she writes, "From time to time, we're reminded of the fact that members of Congress -- many of whom are fighting to kill health care reform -- give themselves pretty good coverage. Several weeks ago, the LA Times reported on the taxpayer-subsidized insurance federal lawmakers currently enjoy.

The piece noted that, while most Americans have to go with whatever their employer offers, members have a choice of 10 plans that offer access to a national network of doctors."

I thought it was well written; it doesn't, from my knowledge, have any mistakes in it grammatically. And then after picking out some wonderful words from ABC News, she goes on with her opinion on the matter. I thought she really held my attention throughout the whole thing which is the biggest thing I look for. On top of that, yes she includes her opinion, but it is so slight that it's like it isn't even there. She is basically giving you the facts and saying "HEY YOU! WATCH OUT FOR THIS!" But I definitely got a feeling of the opinion beneath all these words, that she thinks these congressman have their heads up their arses and only care about themselves.

I like that. Not too much opinion, straight facts, clear and concise. Beautiful.

The next blog is by a guy named John Amato, who titled his post, "Michelle Bachmann's insane "Sex clinics and abortion" rant. Firstly, I feel like titles need to be capitalized, not just pronouns.

So this guy also opens up with a video, which seems to be a theme on the website. My problem with it is that it doesn't seem like a rant to me... it just seems like she thinks what she thinks and no one will persuade her otherwise. After the video Amato writes, "Michele Bachmann, one of the sickest members of Congress that we've ever seen, keeps up the crazy talk when she lies about what's in the SBHC" See, I liked the previous blog better because her opinion was embedded in the words, not just flat out there like this one.

Next, I thought this post was a bit hard to follow. The video clip was kind of cut in an awkward way so when I saw it, I had to pause it and re-read the title and the first sentence before I understood how they went together. After the author's opinion rant, he just quotes what the lady in the video says which I think is probably unnecessary. Then he says and so and so reports - something about why the lady was wrong and ranting... but if you didn't really already have a grasp on what was going on with abortion in the world, I think it would have been harder to understand. Thank goodness in the next paragraph he kind of explains what's going on; that having health clinics for school make healthier kids and therefore succeed, but unless you understood what the lady in the video was saying, all of this would be one big mumbo jumbo.

So basically I don't like this post at all because it does not have an efficient, easy to read/follow structure like the previous blog. There is also too strong of an opinion, I think, too soon. I think to have that kind of opinion you have to explain it better, not just shove it on to people.