Main

May 7, 2007

More than 18,000 get naked for Mexican photo shoot

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/americas/05/06/mexico.nude.ap/index.html?eref=rss_topstories

This story was about an artist from Brooklyn who routinely shoots nude photos of large groups of people. He has done shoots in London and Buffalo and now the biggest yet attracted 18,00 people in Mexico City. It is for art and for change the artist said. People need to be more open and understand and that is why he does this kind of art said Spencer Tunick.

The biggest thing that jumped out to me was that this was an AP story so it went through their editing then it ran on CNN.com hopefully being at least looked at by CNN's personnel and still a basic spelling error still made it on to the page they ran this "United Sates." Yikes.

Overall, it was a good story, vivid and used come good quotes from the artist. However, I think this would have been a more interesting story if they would have profiled the artist a bit. Get to u nderstand what he is doing and why. Really get a feeling for his art and his mission.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2007-05-06-mexico-tunick-photo_N.htm

I liked this story that ran in USAtoday better because while it was not much longer and did not really profile the artist it gave better description of what was going on for example this passage really set the scene and lets you know the ethusiasm of those involved:

"The shoot had the feel of a rock concert. Volunteers did "the wave" between poses and chanted "Mexico! Mexico!" Some participants said they drove four or five hours to participate."

BBC man missing for eight weeks

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6631243.stm

Alan Johnston a reporter for the BBC was abducted on March 12 from Gaza City where he was permanently stationed. The 44-year-old reporter has been missing for eight weeks and no one knows how he is doing. No demands have been made by his kidnappers. Palestinian Authorities, the BBC and the UK government have all been working as hard as possible to get Johnston released but so far no progress has been made.

The thing that was most missing from this article was details. The repoter used a lot of vague statments for example:

"But the Palestinian Authority, the BBC and the UK government say that they are working as hard as possible to secure his release."

What are they doing exactly? What have they done to contact the kidnappers? Who are they calling to try to find him? What exactly is being done? I do not know if the reporter asked these questions and just could not get answers, or if the questions were just not asked. There is so much more that could be added to this story but that was not I felt like I wanted more answers and did not get them in the story.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6610597.stm

This story did not have much more detail on what was being done to get Johnston released, but with the lack of that kind of information this story covered other issues surrounding the the missing man. Since they could not tell what was being done the story provided more history on the situation surrounding his abduction and the history of the area in general. While The questions I posed before were not answered this story did provide that they heard Johnston was still alive. Also, I feel I got answers to the why it happened and who the man was in this story.

Overall, the second story was better because it answered more questions and went more in depth. I felt more satisfied by this story and I feel that the reporter for the second story did more work to get the story written.

Dubai's palm island hit by blaze

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6630805.stm

A fire broke out on an island in Dubai. The island is man-made and shaped like a palm tree, and is suppose to be a huge tourism spot. No one was killed in this fire, but one man was hospitalized and two more workers were treated for smoke inhalation on the site. In January another fire broke out that killed four men and start discussion about improving the safety of the constructions sites.

This article seemed a bit short. For me there seemed like there was a lot more information that the reporter could have told us about the island itself and the previous fire. Other than that I thought the article was handled pretty well, it provided the basics and covered what happened.

http://www.dnaindia.com/report.asp?NewsID=1095133

I found this article much more descriptive, it really showed what had happen on the island and gave good visuals. Also, it provided more information about the casualties of the first fire, not only four people died but 57 others were injured the first article did not mention that. It also explained a little bit of Dubai's struggle to become a bigger nation and add some more tourism to it economy. This article was very brief like the first one, I would have liked more bredth.

Overall, I thought the second article better because I felt I learned more about the situation in that article then I did in the first article.

April 22, 2007

Nigerian candidates Rejects Poll

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/6581993.stm

This article is about elections in Nigeria. For the first time they are having an election to replace an previously elected official. However, there are complaints that the elections were rigged and they were coupled with a lot of violence is Africa's most populace nation. Twenty-four different candidates were looking to replace the president of Nigeria. One student in Nigeria was quoted as saying, "the more thugs you have the more votes you get." Amongst all the violence people did think this election was more sucessful then the previous state election a few weeks ago, but they did not go into what that success wwas.

I thought this article was a little disjointed, it had to main parts the first kind of overviewed what was happening, the violence the elections and candidates. Then the second half went into more detail about specific violence incidents.
First part a broad overview of the situation, the violence the election everything. While is seemed like two separate articles I did like that they really showed what happened instead of just telling us it was violent, when I was reading the first half I kept thinking okay it was violent but what happened. Also, it seemed weird that there was no discussion of any causalties, with that much violence someone must have gotten hurt. Finally the ending to the article seemed out of place, its this long article about elections and violence then suddenly it is mentioned that Nigeria has a lot of oil. Its tacked on at the end with three lines and does not really relate to the story, outside of the fact that oil has been a big issue in a lot of the violence in the area.

Al Jazeera's coverage of the story
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/5A13F14E-442C-4581-B0F3-46AAA357C4BA.htm

From the minute this version of the story opens you get an idea of what happened exactly they get right to the casualties in their lead which I think is important because that's a question everyone is going to ask did people get hurt? This was their lead:

Violence has left at least 14 dead in Nigeria's south as Nigerians go to the polls to choose state governors in the first of two elections intended to solidify civilian rule.

Also, the Al Jazeer coverage was more indepth it gave a background on the area and what had been going on, I know I'm not up with Nigerian politics so I had no idea waht the history was reading the first story. They also show that this is not a random incident and that violence has been ongoing in the area.

In my opinion Al Jazeer's story was better because it was more detailed and the way it was written it kept my interest easier, there was more information included and more specifics.

March 5, 2007

Journalists: U.S. military deleted photos of attack

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/asiapcf/03/04/afghan.photos.ap/index.html?eref=rss_topstories

This story was interesting because its an instance where the U.S. Military, while they are fighting for freedom in these countries, takes away the freedom of the people. American photographers were allowed to pictures left and right but when some countrymen come up to get some photos (working for the AP) they are not allowed and their footage is deleted. Sadly, I searched for other versions of this story but everyone was just printing the AP version and not adding anything new or independent. Also, I am surprised not to see this story covered elsewhere I found one other story that made mention of it but not extensively.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/nation/terror/20070304-1209-afghan-violence.html

Mid way down in the story they breeze past it but it the entire story gives you more context to what is going on over there. Neither story had strong Military comment about the situation. The only man willing to comment said he had not had any official reports of photos being deleted. CNN also had a additional story which was purely about the suicide bombing to add context:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/asiapcf/03/04/afghan.violence/index.html

This one seems more of a media ethics case, or a military ethics case that is. Freedom of the press is one of the institutions that helps keep the military and government in check and how can they do that when their points of view are being squashed because the U.S. Military wants to keep a story quiet?