Gabrielle Settles

sett@wayne.edu
313-401-1463
Analysys 2
Due: 5/31/16

In a Washington Post article titled Much ado about homeless overlooks much bigger issue of
affordable housing, the writer starts out by describing a dispute over the future of 300 homeless
families at the former D.C. General hospital.

Rather than simply answer the questions who, what, when, why and how and put the answers
in the mouths of sources, the first half of the story is used by the writer to creatively describe
what the problem is without using any sources to back it up.

For both the District and the suburbs, the shortage of affordable housing looms as one of the
principal threats to the regions quality of life and economic competitiveness. It hurts janitors and
school teachers, young professionals struggling with student debt, and the restaurant
waitresses who serve them, the third paragraph states.

Through his word choice and tone, the writer paints the situation negatively without using any
sources to back it up and describe how they feel.

In the handout Copy Editing for Diversity, Ron Smith writes that copy editors should know that
no one person speaks for an entire group.

In the Washington Post story, the writer almost does nothing but speak for people!

He uses sentences that speak for the government agencies who are working to fix high priced
housing, such as They probably also would include a public compact, or pledge, in which the
District and surrounding counties would to produce its fair share of affordable housing over a
specific period.

While what he writes may be in fact true, almost none of it is backed up by a quote until the
second half of the article.

As a reader I would prefer to hear it straight from the source, in order to prove that this is in fact
true and not just the writers assumptions and analysis.