Obama Awarded the Nobel Peace Prize


By Nick Coluzzi

It was the shot heard ’round the world.

After eight months in the White House and no major accomplishments to show for, President Barack Obama received one of the most respected and coveted awards in the world–the Nobel Peace Prize.

The biggest question among citizens and politicians is: Why?

President Obama has made some big promises on what he will do, reduce the production of nuclear weapons, find peace in the Middle East and pull out of Afghanistan, to name a few, but he hasn’t done any of those things; at least not yet.  As strange as it may seem, the phrase “not yet” is why Obama won the prestigious award.  It was given to him for what he will do and what he aims to accomplish while in office.

After the announcement was made, people were confused and outraged with many stating the President should not receive the award.  Perhaps foreseeing the reactions of the public, President Obama acknowledged that he is not accepting this award for his past accomplishments, but rather as “a call to action.”  This award is meant to “push” the President to achieve what he has sought to do and to create “momentum” towards peace.  However, his detractors are none too pleased with that explanation.  They feel the award should be earned for what has been done, not what will be done.

This award is significant, and not just for Obama.  What this award does for America and the World is give hope that peace can be achieved and wars can be avoided with help from the President of the most powerful country in the world.  Whatever your opinion, Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize is good for America and it is hard to argue it isn’t.


One response to “Obama Awarded the Nobel Peace Prize

  1. Nick,
    Content: 2
    You raise good points and certainly Obama’s prize is in the news and worth talking about. But once again, the point of the blog is not for you to offer an opinion/editorial on a news story, but to discuss some aspect of journalism. How did the media cover the announcement? Were they biased? How did they report on the mixed reactions across the globe? Those are pertinent questions on this subject.
    links: 2 These links are all to mainstream news sites, they don’t take me anywhere new that I couldn’t find on my own. That is what gives links value. Find non-traditional voices, look at how the story got reported outside America, for instance or by minorities. Look at the way reporters wrote, the words they chose. Link to those sites. That would be valuable to readers and add something new to the discussion.
    Grammar: 3 Despite the content problems, the piece is tightly-written and easy to read.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s