A news analysis offers an interpretation of a recent event, such as a natural disaster, a change in government policy, or a business merger. For example, questions about the striking rise in the price of fuel over the past decade have been the subject of numerous news analyses. Other news analyses have focused on topics such as campaign finance reform, government efforts to deter terrorism, and proposed changes in immigration law.
News analyses are written for readers who seek a fuller understanding of the origins or implications of an event. Style and design tend to reflect the standards of the publication in which the news analysis appears—usually, but not always, a newspaper, a magazine, or a Web site. Most writers adopt a balanced tone, even when their analysis strongly reflects a particular set of values or beliefs, and they often use illustrations, such as photographs and charts, to persuade readers that their interpretations are reasonable and well founded. Writers of news analyses usually acknowledge their sources of information, although they don’t necessarily use a formal citation system.
Chicago Tribune
The Drone Future (newspaper article)
This news analysis, published in the Chicago Tribune, calls attention to the debate around using drones, or unmanned aircraft, within the United States. Drones are currently used by the U.S. military to gather intelligence and to carry out bombing missions overseas; they are controlled via satellite by military personnel on the ground in the United States.
Domestically, drones are increasingly used in law enforcement for surveillance purposes. In the editorial that follows, the editors of the Chicago Tribune analyze the growing concerns over whether drones violate civil liberties.
Chicago Tribune
March 11, 2013
They’re small, inexpensive, and capable of feats that once belonged to the realm of science fiction—and they’re here to stay. The advent of drones is one of the most significant technological advances of our time.
These pilotless, remote-controlled aircraft have been a boon to the war against terrorist enemies in South Asia. They were a key to our successful intervention in Libya. With great promise for law enforcement, they also have been deployed by the Department of Homeland Security to detect people illegally crossing this nation’s southern border.
But as last week’s filibuster by U.S. Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., dramatized, these machines also evoke serious concerns. In the realm of the war on terrorism, the fear is that, having been used on foreigners and even American citizens involved with al-Qaida, they may be used to kill Americans on U.S. soil without a hearing or trial.
“The Fifth Amendment protects you … from a king placing you in the tower, but it should also protect you from a president that might kill you with a drone,” Paul said.
Most police agencies in the U.S. haven’t been rushing to adopt drones. The Chicago Police Department doesn’t plan to use them. But drones have been put to use by police departments in Miami, Seattle, and Little Rock, Ark. Civil libertarians fear surveillance drones will become so common that even law-abiding citizens will find it impossible to escape the unblinking eye in the sky.
The warnings are not baseless. The Obama administration has needlessly fueled the worst suspicions with its secrecy about its policy in using drones against enemies. Only recently did it make public a Justice Department white paper—and then only after the document leaked to the media. And the White House has yet to fully disclose the legal basis for its actions.
But the rules are not expansive—limiting targets to senior figures in al-Qaida and affiliated groups who are involved in planning attacks and cannot be captured. This last condition, Paul might have noticed, would exclude almost anyone on U.S. soil, citizen or not, since apprehending a suspect here is far easier than in Yemen or Somalia.
It was nonetheless reassuring to hear the admission that Paul finally coaxed from Attorney General Eric Holder, who said the president does not have the right to use a drone to kill an American “not engaged in combat” in this country. Only in extraordinary circumstances is it possible to imagine such use—say, a citizen working for al-Qaida who hijacks a plane and steers it toward a skyscraper.
As for police drones, it’s not too early to start talking about how they may be used to enhance public safety without violating individual privacy. Because of their low cost, quiet operation, and maneuverability, drones could be a great boon to crime fighting, letting cops monitor criminals far more intensively than they can today.
But for the same reason, they could significantly impinge on privacy. The American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois wants the General Assembly to limit their use to a few purposes, such as preventing a suspect from escaping, locating missing people, and averting imminent harm to life or property. Aside from those circumstances, police would need a search warrant.
A drone regulation bill sponsored by state Sen. Daniel Biss, D-Evanston, passed out of a Senate committee last week. It’s a good starting place for debate. But before creating law, the Legislature should take its time and get the full input of police and prosecutors. Those voices may argue that drones are technologically different—but their deployment not terribly different in principle—from helicopters, cruisers, and fixed cameras that allow police officers to monitor citizens.
Drones are clearly a big part of the future. Now is a good time to address what that future will be.
Source: articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-03-11/opinion/ct-edit-drones-0311-jm-20130311_1_drones-qaida-yemen-or-somalia
In the text boxes below, respond to the Chicago Tribune’s news analysis by answering the following questions: