Faculties predicts Obama's priorities'

I have so many problems with this article, it’s not even funny.

Starting with the headline: it is very confusing to the average reader. “Faculty” looks like it should have been written “Faculties” so that we know there is more than one faculty involved in the so-called predictions. Otherwise, “predict” looks suspiciously as if it wants to be spelled “predicts”. Then again, it should probably be spelled that way after-all, so that we have no doubt that it is in present tense. While we’re at it, let’s add an apostrophe after “priorities” just for fun. That will make for a much more interesting headline which will surely catch the attention and admiration of readers.

On to the body... I’ve noticed that the noun-to-verb ratio is terribly out of line with other articles of this type. That is likely to be one of the first things people notice, so I’m surprised that this glaring mistake made it past the editor. Shame on them. I would suggest adding more verbs - especially action verbs - perhaps smattered randomly throughout the piece.

Another problem is that Caitlin Byrnes quotes four different faculties in this article. Actually, I don’t really have a problem with that, I just wanted to count them for some reason. For a quadrophile, that’s quite the quintessential quota of quotations.

Towards the end of the article, there is an unnecessary space between the word “Afghanistan” and the comma following it. This level of wanton carelessness sickens me. It’s this kind of shoddy journalism that is sending not only the news agencies but our entire nation and way of life spiraling down the tubes at this very moment. God help us all. Thanks for perpetuating the cycle, Red and Black.

But perhaps the most disturbing error in this article is the fact that they didn’t even try to work in any commentary about the Obamas’ choice of dog, nor the girls’ household chores or fashion statements. Next time, the author should focus more on the real issues. Give the public what we need to know!