Everyone Loves a Journalistically Informed Girl

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/10/world/middleeast/10iraq.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&ref=todayspaper
I found this article via the New York Times website. A massive rally was held Monday in the Iraqi city of Najaf to protest the American occupation. Reports of between 5,000 to 7,000 people participated in the protest by burning American flags, shouting "death to America" and wrapping themselves in Iraqi flags. The rally consisted mostly of Iraqis loyal to Moktada al-Sadr, a Shiite cleric and Iraqi nationalist. A smaller group of Sunnis also participated in the demonstastration, despite the accusations that Sadr's militia are killing Sunnis. The protest took place on the fourth anniversary of the fall of Baghdad. Sadr's militia and other Iraqi forces still continued fighting in Diwaniya, despite his call for peace among the groups, leading some to believe he may have lost total control over his followers. Sadr's whereabouts is still unknown.
A challenge the reporter faced when covering this story is keeping track of exactly who is fighting who. The rally protested American occupation of the country, but the article was also about fighting between Iraqi military groups. Sadr is a Shiite whose militia may be responsible for killing Sunni Iraqis, but some Sunnis still support him. The one thing both groups agree on is they hate America. The author did a good job of clarifying a complicated situation, but sometimes the article felt like two separate stories.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/09/AR2007040900062.html
I found this article on the Washington Post's website. This article said that more people participated in the protest that the NY Times article. Also this article focused more on the protest itself by using more quotes from the participants and gave more of a background on Sadr's influence. The article gave more of a visual descritption of the protest as well.
I found both articles to be interesting. The Post article kept the focus of the story more and gave the reader a better idea of the protest itself. The Times article gave a broader spectrum of what impact the rally had on other areas of Iraq.

Posted by Stephanie Bennett at 6:58 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/22/world/europe/22italy.html?em&ex=1172379600&en=9028aad4f6ad8462&ei=5087%0A
I found this article on the New York Times Web site. The Italian Prime Minister, Romano Prodi, resigned Wednesday after only nine months in office. The traditionally unstable government in Italy finally broke after a Senate vote on continuing to supply troops to Afghanistan and the expansion of an American military base in Northern Italy. Prodi supported aiding the U.S. in their military efforts, but the vote was defeated when two of his own party members abstained, essentially pulling the rug out from under his political standing. Italy’s foreign minister, Massimo D’Alema, gave a stirring speech in support of the Prime Minister’s stance saying that Italy’s support of the war in Afghanistan is justified because military action in Afghanistan was U.N. approved. It was all in vain. The vote was lost, mostly due to the two abstentions which set the vote at 158, just shy of the 160 needed to support Prodi’s plan. Just moments after the vote was solidified Italian senators shouted, “Resign! Resign!� in the direction of D’Alema. Unlike the Prime Minister, D’Alema’s resignation is not confirmed, but the Italian government is in desperate need of re-structuring. President Giorgio Napolitano will consult with Italian political parties to try and form a new government and make plans for another election. One possibility for Prodi’s replacement is Silvio Berlusconi, a former prime minister who Prodi defeated in the last election. Berlusconi is the only prime minister to date that has actually served out a full 5-year term.
A challenge the reporter faced when writing this article was sorting through all the different Italian political parties and their views. Prodi alone resided over a coalition of nine different political parties. The Italian governmental structure is vastly complicated with viable parties ranging from communists to extreme right-wing Catholics, so the reported did a good job of cutting it down to the relevant topics and not delving too deep into the government’s intricacies.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/02/23/italy.reut/index.html
I read another article on CNN.com that is more recent. Prodi is now seeking to stay in power, but will need the full support of his parties. It is up to President Napolitano to determine if Prodi can hold the government together. This article gives a good update on the story. They gave the crucial facts of Wednesday’s story on why Prodi resigned, but mainly stuck to the breaking news.
I think this story is a good example of how supporting or not-supporting the United States plays such a huge role in other nation’s political systems. In a way, some yahoo from Texas just single-handedly destroyed Italy’s entire governmental structure. I honestly feel bad for poor Prodi.

Posted by Stephanie Bennett at 12:52 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/10/AR2007021000524.html
I found this article on the Washington Post website. The article is about a speech given by Russian President Vladimir Putin at a conference in Munich Saturday. Putin harshly criticized the U.S. for its unilateral military approach in the Middle East and said “the United States has overstepped its national borders in everyway.� Putin criticized NATO for placing military forces on Russia’s borders and expressed disapproval for the U.S.’s desire to put antimissile systems in Eastern Europe. He also defended Russia’s arms sale to Iran and said, “we don’t want Iran to feel cornered.� Some U.S. politicians in attendance criticized Putin for his comments as did the White House. Spokesman Gordon Johndroe said in a statement, “we are surprised and disappointed with President Putin’s comments.� Putin always disapproved of the U.S.’s action in Iraq and drew parallels to the Cold War in his speech. Many U.S. politicians weighed in on the speech, but when asked to comment, U.S. Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates who attended the Munich conference just “smiled and shook his head.�
The challenge for this article is explaining all the different motivations behind the comments made by Putin. The issue of Iraq is multifaceted enough, but the relationship between the U.S. and Russia is even more complex. It is a challenge for the writer to report on all the opinions and factors involved in this issue without going over the reader’s head. Someone that has no background in history at all may find this article a bit confusing, but the author did a good job of sticking to the matters being discussed now with minimal background information.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/11/world/europe/11munich.html?pagewanted=1
I also read a New York Times article on this subject on the website. This article gave much more detail about what Putin actually said in his speech. It also gave a broader perspective on what the international community thought of Putin’s comments. The article included that the EU is also facing tensions with Russia over a dispute on natural gas prices and the independence of Kosovo. This article quoted German Chancellor Angela Merkel at length on Europe’s relationship with Russia.
The Washington Post article focused more on the reaction of the United States to Putin’s speech while the Times article gave a more global sense of what is going on. My vote is for the Times article.

Posted by Stephanie Bennett at 7:32 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

I found this article in the StarTribune today (Jan. 26th, A3). On Thursday, university students in Beirut, Lebanon escalate a "lunchroom brawl" into a full-blown riot that leaves four people dead and 150 injured. The violence sparked from tensions between students who support the Western-backed Lebonese government and those who support the Iranian-backed Hezbollah. The animostity had been increasing since Tuesday when Hezbollah leaders called for a strike to protest a gathering of donar nations in Paris. The $7.6 billion promised at the gathering will go to support the Lebonese government and Prime Minister Fuad Saniora. Army troops were able to disperse the riots and called for the first curfew to be implemented in Beirut since 1996. Each side blames the other for the violence despite the fact that both Prime Minister Saniora and Hezbollah leader Sheik Hassan Nasrallah have urged thier supporters to allow security forces to step in.
This article does a good job of reporting on the specific occurence in Beirut, but also ties it in with how theses tensions impact other nations. A side note to the article gives a brief list of the major donars supporting Prime Minister Saniora (United States, France, European Union, Saudi Arabia) and the amount of thier donations. It becomes clear to the reader that the violence stems from tensions between the United States and Iran as well as Sunni and Shiite Arab nations.
I read another article on this on the New York Times website.http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/world/AP-Lebanon.html?_r=1&ref=world&oref=slogin This article offers the same basic information as the Strib article, but goes into more detail about how leaders are trying to stop the violence. The Times states that both sides want to prevent civil war and this article makes reference to previous conflicts in Lebanon. The Strib article uses the words "curfew" and "university" in its headline, but doesnt really focus on the aftermath of the riots. The Times article gives more of an overview on how Beirut is cleaning up after the violence and how the university is dealing with the situation.
I think both articles pick up where the other one lacks. The Strib article gives more information on how the riots impact western support of the Lebonese government and the response from Hezbollah to that support. The Times article gives the reader a sense of what is happening in Beirut now and what the different factions plan to do to keep the peace. I think a combination of sections from each article would make for a more comprehensive story.

Posted by Stephanie Bennett at 12:31 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)