Kirk’s reporting used arguments of both side that praised Queen’s increase in tourism and also gives the statistics some doubt. I think this was a very good tactic because every story needs both side of  the spectrum. If we only read the positives of how much Queen’s tourism has increased then we would’ve never known some of the negative aspects that still exist in promoting greater tourism. For example, the article  emphasizes that development of hotels and attractions play an important role in tourism. Queens doesn’t have much of that compared to Manhattan. It only seems appropriate that there would be doubt because, even as a Queen’s resident myself, I find it hard to believe that Queens is the #1 travel destination in the U.S for 2015. There is even doubt recognized from his interviewees. One tourists was confused about where Queens was, it is mentioned that sometimes tourists take the wrong train and end up in Queens, and there is also a limited mount of time they have when it comes to exploring outside of Manhattan. I think these problems that exists when it comes to tourism in Queens is important to mention because it’s not enough to just praise how much Queen’s tourism has improved.