Review/Commentary 1

On
The Biggest Little Man in the World
http://www.gq. com/sports/ profiles/ 201004/manny- pacquiao- boxer
If Genius is madness, then the writer of this article must surely have been a genius.
The writer used a style that, according to my old-world journalistic training, was unorthodox. This was a story, not just a mere scoop—not quite biased, not quite untainted either. His approach to the article was different, but all too familiar.
Unlike how most journalistic articles seem desensitized, this paints a picture, rather than just itemizing whatever needs to be known. Personally, I felt like the work raised the reader from mere spectator to an actual part of the piece, imagining, relating to the experience.
The article goes on to relate the evolution of Pacman from his beginning in 1995, to the annihilator that he is now. Pacquiao’s image is even made greater by the author’s explanations of little facts that may be beyond the normal reader’s stock knowledge. He identifies little facts such as the issues most boxers face with weight changes, and even a short (although not so positive) profile of the Philippines and the Filipinos. I eventually got to wondering how this man seems to know so much about Manny. Then the beans spill. He is now Pacman’s chief of staff.

 
On
Author Nicholas Carr: The Web Shatters Focus, Rewires Brains
http://www.wired. com/magazine/ 2010/05/ff_ nicholas_ carr/
This was an unbelievably easy read. The title actually turned me off at first. It was so succinct, so straight-to-the-point, so boring. But as I read through the rest of the article, I found myself learning and enjoying at the same time. Something I haven’t done since Art Attack went off air.
The afore mentioned title was actually reflective of the characteristics of the rest of the article. It was straight to the point and understandable with the least amount of effort. The words used were simplified, yet not dumbed down. When there were highly technical terms that were essential to the understanding of the facts in their full magnitude, there was a brief explanation, or a convenient link to Wikipedia, or both. Or, most amusingly, there were very simple, mundane analogies that explained other complicated happenings that we never even knew were going on in our systems.
Sweet irony came to light upon reading the second page of the article. This semester has found me with multiple copies of readings—copies made when I found something interesting for my thesis in articles I had actually already made copies of for a different passage. Sometimes, hasty skimming does make waste.
 
On
The Networker
http://www.newyorke r.com/reporting/ 2010/07/05/ 100705fa_ fact_auletta
“The Networker,” these two words encapsulate the whole of the article. It talks about a man; it talks about the man. It tells you of what he does. It tells you about what the article tells you about. It talks about how one man might very well be your 6-degree-connection to the annals of world power.
If I were given the honor of re-titling the article on a criterion of my own, I would call it “Journal-ist.” The whole article is relaxed but very informative. It was filled with segments that seemed to roll themselves right out the tip of the pen. There were some tidbits that may have been best introduced by “Oh yeah, did you know that...” or, “and, by the way...” The author seemed to be telling a story, not to a brother, nor to a best friend, rather a more intimate companion. He was talking to a version of himself whom he saw a week, a month, a hotel, or a world away. It was so honest, so impromptu, that it gave the sense of reading someone’s diary of secrets and observations. It was like reading the author’s little entries—his little log into his journal.

 
On
Oprah Talks to Ellen DeGeneres
http://www.oprah. com/omagazine/ Oprah-Interviews -Ellen-DeGeneres -Ellens-O- Magazine- Cover/1
This was a chat log with a 1-page introduction to contextualize it and a nice wrap-up in the end. Definitely a human interest story, it was sadly, not very interesting.
I am not a fan of the two subjects of the article, though I have watched my share of their shows. Based on what I have watched, their appeal is in their honesty and charity. Both have given away countless gifts on air, of course pioneered by Oprah giving away cars to each of her unsuspecting audience members. Ellen herself has a yearly 12 Days of Christmas give-away promo. Along with the laughs, the smiles, and their flamboyant characters, these two have also shed their own fair share of tears on air. I guess it is because of these that I expected more from the article. I had the illusion that somehow, there were still behind-the-scenes acts that would be opened up to us. Of course, we can see it in different ways. There may still be privy scenarios which are still privy from us, or that these two icons have been so open that, what we see on screen, is what we would get whatever vantage point we have.