Creative Title for Blog Post 4

       On November 17, 2014, The Los Angeles time  published an opinion article written by ‘The Editorial Board’ titled "To stop the government from collecting our phone records, pass the USA Freedom Act." The article describes how the many of the officials in the Obama administration as well as many democrats and republicans support the USA Freedom Act, a bill which would end the bulk collection of American "metadata." The author appears to be attempting neutrality by the way the article is worded, however emphasis on the supporting Democrats and adding in Republican supporters as an afterthought hints at the author's Democratic political views.

                  The author takes a solid stance regarding the unnecessary nature of bulk phone record collection when he states "Obama's own advisory panel, however, concluded that information obtained from the metadata program “was not essential to preventing attacks” and could have been acquired by other means." I appreciate the way in which the author uses external quotes, which adds to their credibility, which seeing as the author is an Editorial Board, is much higher than if the author was a single person. The author than turns to further expand upon the increasing lack of support for the continued collection of American phone records which, if the bill is passed, will be replaced with much more targeted and legal searches, which gives them a strong conclusion and a powerful message.
                      I personally agree with the message and fully enjoyed the article. The author is credible and keeps a consistently neutral tone throughout the editorial. I agreed with the points being made and felt that the wording of he article was concise and well thought out.

Blog Post 3

       On October 29th, 2014, USA Today published an opinion article written by ‘The Editorial Board’ titled "Why election is not about the Senate: Our view." The article discusses how the elections for the Senate race are not the big story, the races for state governor are what the elections will truly revolve around. The author is targeting a republican audience which is made blatantly obvious by their wording regarding President Obama when the author regards him as “a lame duck president whom (Congress) has thwarted quite well.”
        The author is trying to make the point that the Congressional elections are going to continue as the always have, but the Governor elections will be much more heated, resulting in many changes in power in the more efficient and responsive state governments. Due to heated races, Democratic candidates could become governor in Red states and Republicans in Blue states, which makes for a much more interesting election. The author also calls into focus the issue of why state governments are so much more efficient than the national government, and reasons that the reason for it is because each state is run by a solitary party so power struggles and constant argument are minimal. I believe he makes a valid point, seeing as there is a greater possibility of party change in the many state governments than the senate.
         The author has a high amount of credibility because The Editorial Board has multiple members, all of which have some credibility regarding journalism as they have produced many articles before. I agree with the points made, however I feel that the wording of the articles has a negative effect, losing approval from people who support Obama. I believe that the article itself is well written, but could be edited to appeal to a larger audience.