Media Critique: Montana Rape Case

     Three articles were written about the Montana teacher rape case by well-known news sources. Two articles provided all the information a person would need to know, one news agency, however, failed to impress. The article was written to the bare minimum, it lacked context and explanation.

     The two well written articles included quotes given by the mother of the teen girl who was raped and committed suicide, Auliea Hanlon. One article even went far enough to quote her from an interview by another news agency. They both also quoted the controversial comments made by Judge Baugh. The poorly written article had one quote given by the Montana Supreme Court. The other two had quotes from everyone directly involved in the case including: mother Auliea Hanlon, Judge Todd Baugh, and rapist Stacey Rambold. The article that had the most details was the one that cited their sources most often. The badly written article stood out a lot more due to the lack of facts. 

     The best two articles also gave lengthy explanation. They both said why this case was unjust and how it could be a pivotal case in Montana's history. They both explained that the rapist was given a 31 day prison sentence, when the minimum by Montana state law is 2 years. The bad article only focused on the 31 day sentence and failed to give attention as to what the future of this case may be. It also focused on the fact of the teen's suicide. In contrast the other two articles talked about the future of Judge Baugh's court career, Auliea Hanlon's life without her daughter, and the future of Stacey Rambold. All articles did talk about how Stacey Rambold broke his probation and Judge Baugh saying it wasn't worthy enough to go to jail. All the articles also talked about how the Supreme Court of Montana will get involved. One of the superior articles also stated that the case could take 6-18 months to get through the system. 

     The difference between all 3 articles really showed in the level of context and explanation. The two articles just couldn't be compare to the third because of the attention to detail they both possessed. They made the third article look sloppy and hastily written because they had so much context directly from those involved. They also gave explanation about why this case matters, and addressed controversial issues like women's rights. The third article was like reading a plain, dull version of the story. This goes to show that the principles of journalism should always be followed if writers want to be seen as respected journalists.