Bad Article in Hamilton Spectator

The one particular article that I chose in the newspaper that was considered a bad article was entitled “Short recess bad for kids, parents complain,” and was found in the Hamilton Spectator. First of all the title to me was not catchy at all, it was very bland, boring and the title made the whole article seem like a waste of space and time to the reader. The article was about schools shortening recess and not consulting parents first. The article had many different parties within it such as parents, students, teachers, school council chair, Hamilton public school board and superintendent. The whole article has she said she he said but the reporter never quotes them, they just basically paraphrase which implies that he did not actually interview, or gather the information from a primary source. The article may get the idea and the issue across to readers, but it seems as if the information is skewed in some way, as you don’t exactly know what each side really has to say as he puts words in their mouths. The content in this article was fair, it included many points to sides, but the style of the article was lacking clarity and precision. For this article to maybe have been considered a good one and not a bad one, they reporter could have interviewed more people for quotes, to make all of the sides well represented in the issue.
In a few instances the article says what a particular party is feeling, without having a direct quote from the source, so it's almost as if the reporter is telling the reader what they feel. This story was lacking many things, such as thoroughness, relevance and precision. I also didn't feel that this story was newsworthy at all, it is not relevant to the majority of the public, especially when the article says that this is only happening at one Hamilton public school.