Analysis: "Planning Surgery? Bring a Sharpie."

LINK: http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/10/22/planning-surgery-bring-a-sharpie/

"Planning Surgery? Bring a Sharpie" written by Tara Parker

This article is as soft as news gets. It's about Sharpies for crying out loud. Sharpies and why they are effective for doctors to use when performing plastic surgery. The lede is very simple; effectively answers 4 W's and uses language that points out that a Sharpie is an everyday tool and should therefore not be combined with technical surgeries. Irony draws the reader in.

The article quickly moves on to tell readers WHY doctors are using Sharpies. This is done in the second paragraph.

The third paragraph starts with a randomly placed, (I think) "expert" attribution. Infection control experts from the University of Alabama decided to study the pens by comparing them to other pens! Also in this paragraph was a mention of George Bush, citing that he probably uses Sharpies from time to time. I wouldn't be surprized if this was a simple technique to catch the reader's attention. Usually, the name "George Bush" in print catches the public's eye.

The following paragraph explains the tests done on the Sharpies, and how other markers become easily contaminated with germs and things. Following that was a really lame quote that had nothing to do with anything: "“We went much further than what would happen in real life,” said Dr. Sarah Forgie, associate professor in the department of pediatrics.

I think it's a really vague quote. The validity seems lacking. As well as the above mentioned "Infection control experts." It's also sketchy that they talked about the control experts for four paragraphs and couldn't even get a quote. So they had to go to "Dr." Forgie of (lowercase)department of pediatrics?

The finally paragraph includes a bit of advice when using sharpies to draw on yourself while under the knife. Thanks, Tara, because we've all been there! She also directs readers onto a related article: "When Surgeons Cut the Wrong Body Part." Analysis number two, here I come!

Overall, I thought this article was poorly written. And too vague for my own liking. It used very bland language and the lede was weak. It didn't provide enough quotes or actual facts or statistics.