Wow - this is old journalism at its best. A few things really stand out:
- a 36(!!) minute masterpiece, and difficult to cut anything out to make it shorter without losing something
- the journalist covered both sides of the story, and did so beautifully, allowing us to enter into his shoes and feel like we were in the action, talking to the people on both sides
- both sides were given more than fair treatment to voice, not just their political stance, but their passion and feelings about the issue
- added supplementary information about foxes, the history of hunting, animal rights, English dissenting tradition, even his personal experience with foxes - all to add color to the issue and make it come alive within its historical and humanistic context
- the opinion on whether or not fox hunting is right is not the main point of the article - the issue isn't front and center, the people are
- does not write his opinion into the article, remains the unbiased third party throughout while still allowing the reader to get into the heads of both sides and form their own perspectives and views
- an absolutely amazing conclusion (i want to avoid spoiling it) that manages to tie everything mentioned in the article together and turning fox hunting into commentary about the entire British society
2004, huh? Would love to see this kind of journalism make a comeback.
- a 36(!!) minute masterpiece, and difficult to cut anything out to make it shorter without losing something
- the journalist covered both sides of the story, and did so beautifully, allowing us to enter into his shoes and feel like we were in the action, talking to the people on both sides
- both sides were given more than fair treatment to voice, not just their political stance, but their passion and feelings about the issue
- added supplementary information about foxes, the history of hunting, animal rights, English dissenting tradition, even his personal experience with foxes - all to add color to the issue and make it come alive within its historical and humanistic context
- the opinion on whether or not fox hunting is right is not the main point of the article - the issue isn't front and center, the people are
- does not write his opinion into the article, remains the unbiased third party throughout while still allowing the reader to get into the heads of both sides and form their own perspectives and views
- an absolutely amazing conclusion (i want to avoid spoiling it) that manages to tie everything mentioned in the article together and turning fox hunting into commentary about the entire British society
2004, huh? Would love to see this kind of journalism make a comeback.