Summary: The Star Ledger published an article in today’s Union County section depicting the youth vote in the presidential primary. In spending a few hours at Park Middle School, the reporter collected information about the methods and strategies used to facilitate student voting and instructional activities. In addition, the results and some demographic information about the schools were included in the piece. Interestingly, the results from the student election (at both levels) was not consistent with the state results.
Focus Question: Since you were immersed in this election experience you have many insights about the outcomes of the day. Think about a few issues and respond accordingly (to the parts of interest to you).
1. What was the intended message conveyed by the author?
2. Did she accurately depict the day’s experience?
3. How will our school-community be perceived by readers outside of the district?
4. What does this story show you about how the media and politics are closely linked?
http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2008/02/the_real_youth_vote_union_coun.html
3 responses so far ↓
08roconnor // February 9, 2008 at 6:45 pm |
I belive that the authors intended message of the article was to show how children of voters will vote in a similar fasion as their parents. The article it’s self focused more on the election we held rather than the lesson we taught to the middle school kids, it also said we held debates, over election topics. It seemed to down play the teaching we did and made it more of a middle school teacher thing not an AP gov thing. Through the tone of this article it will make the SPF school district like a highly politicaly aware and active district. Through this article it seems that the papers play a major role in the elections, the papers want to apear like they know everything there is to know in the current elections and are ready to back whoever they feel that is going to win, and want to predict the outcome as soon as the possibly can.
Alec J. // February 12, 2008 at 1:00 am |
I disagree with almost every single thing that Rob said. First, though some kids said that the issues they pay attention to are the same as the ones their parents are focused on, the exit polling we conducted showed us that most kids were not influenced by their parents, and the actual primary results in New Jersey differed on the Democratic side, between what the kids voted and what the actual population (their parents) voted. I think the message she was trying to convey was not that kids will vote based on what their parents say, but rather the opposite; that the youth today has gotten so involved in the upcoming election that kids as young as middle schoolers have formed their own opinions on the candidates and the issues.
Rob also said that the author focused more on the middle school than she did on us. Well, yeah. That was the point. The day wasn’t about us, nor should the article have been. It was about the middle school kids. About them being better educated and able to form their own opinions. If she hadn’t mentioned it, I could see why you would think she was “down playing” the work we did, but she did mention us, and then continued on to the more important aspect of the day.
While I do agree that the article made our school district look good (and politically engaged), I don’t see how that article could make someone think that newspapers are merely concerned with being know-it-alls. What the article says about the relations between the media and the election, I think, is how much more important the youth vote has become; that even the middle school vote, which counts for nothing, is getting some media coverage.
Matt T. // February 14, 2008 at 2:16 pm |
Looking over the questions, I think it is safe to say that the article did a good job of depicting the day’s events as well as articulating the point. As a result of good summary, others will envy the experience. Quotes from teachers/student really helped tie everything together, specifically the final quote which sums up the purpose of the elections. In response to Rob’s comment about the “papers [wanting] to appear like they know everything,” I think he’s way off. First of all, one person wrote the article and it would not be fair to generalize the entire Star Ledger by claiming an attempt at knowing-it-all; in addition, the presentation of the candidates in the article was not biased by any means.
Overall, this was a good article written about a good event that we had the luxury of observing and being a part of.