Land of sky blue waters

Wow. There's an interesting article in the NY Times today about the newspaper industry. It turns out that all these media corporations who've been squawking that newspapers are dying and cited all these drops in circulation, have only just given up on certain demographics and let them drift away because the advertisers aren't interested in them. The Dallas Morning News, LA TImes, and ( I would include) our very own Pioneer Press.

It leads with stats about the drop in circulation and then segues into filling out their argument that newspapers are doing this on purpose by quoting a marketing exec. He is followed by facts from a newspaper association showing how it makes economic sense to stop trying to get certain demographics.It then gives examples from papers, even the Times.

Posted by Jon Collins at 11:13 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The Packers beat the Vikings today. That makes them 4-0 for the first time since 1998. But what's really attracting attention is the fact that Brett Favre, the quarterback, just beat Dan Marino's record for most touchdown passes. This story seems more substantial than the typical sports record story partly because Favre is famously modest. But also because his work ethic and dedication are almost universally lauded. The guy has played 17 years in a sport that pretty much grinds your bones to dust (having 350 pound guys trying to jump on you all day will do that). And to top it off, it was only two years ago that the Packers went 4-12 and the sports writers and fans were howling for him to give it up. Better than most stories now right?

I thought I would compare the AP story to the Green Bay Press-Gazette and look at their different writing styles and focuses.

Both of these stories combine the news that the Packers won with the news that Favre beat the record. They both lead with this record information, but the AP uses it to segue into news of the win (and the Packers record). The Press-Gazette explains the how (the slant pass) to set up the story. Then they go into chronological mode and describe the scene leading up to Favre's first touchdown and the ensuing celebration. An analysis of his performance follows, closing by getting a teammate to describe his post-game speech.
The AP is more information based. They talk about the issues: the record, the win, the 4-0, and the interception record he's approaching. It closes by providing some drama, essentially some calls that Vikings staff didn't like. My impression would be that it's a boring way to end such an interesting story (especially when you have the awesome tools of sports journalism at your fingertips), but maybe it's just that it's the AP and they need to just provide the straight facts while the Press=Gazette, the hometown paper, can emotionalize it.

Posted by Jon Collins at 9:29 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

George Bush has somehow managed to go seven years without admitting to the rest of the world that global warming is real. One more legacy of the administration falls away as he has now not only admitted it, but believes that human might play a part in it. I'm interested what role the media has played in allowing this "belief" to persist for so long against overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Do journalists have a responsibility to ask questions over and over even if someone says they just "believe" something? Do we have to ask why people believe something? Is this news worthy of attention, or is there space for it in between all the human interest stories about geese accidentally being adopted at an animal shelter?

I intentionally looked at two extremely different sources, an AP story published in the Washington Post and the Guardian UK. Obviously the Post is just a little bit conservative in its approach while the Guardian is a little lefty. How did their ideological approach differ?

The titles are obviously a good starting point. Here it is:
"Europeans angry after Bush climate speech 'charade'"
The sub head has two points:

"· US isolated as China and India refuse to back policy.
"· President claims he can lead world on emissions."

Now, I know that Bush doesn't probably even know what the Guardian is. But if he read those headlines over his breakfast of pretzels and powerade it might make even him lose his appetite. Obviously they're intended for someone who already has an opinion about the president.

The Washington Post AP article says only, "Bush Seeks New Image on Global Warming"

The Post is based out of that former swamp brimming with politicians. If they took every opportunity to slam politicos then it would make doing their jobs more difficult. The headline tells us that they're taking the story in a different direction, covering the news that Bush is even talking about about global warming and his PR approach.

The AP however can't avoid the issue that other countries were upset by the proposal of a "voluntary" reduction in greenhouse gases, they mention it in the lead. THe first four paragraphs, however, talk about the good things Bush has done, how this is revolutionary for them to even participate. It gives an introduction to the event and then more postiive reactions. It's only on the second page, with seven paragraphs left to go, that it brings up negative reactions. It closes with a quote from some diplomat saying that while he think this si a good step, it probably has more to do with U.S. elections than global warming.

The Guardian story leads by painting the administration as isolated. It then goes into the plethora of people who had problems with the voluntary approach. About halfway down it notes that some people were excited about the prospects of the U.S. participating Guess what? They're not anymore. It closes with a quote from an environmentalist basically saying that the whole conference was a "diversion."

Something I rarely hear about in these journalism classes is discussion of how a story changes depending on who you decide to interview, whose perspectives are valid. Noam Chomsky has a thick book talking about it. Essentially, official positions are given precedent because they're easy and have immediate legitimacy. The critical mass story I blogged about last week is an interesting example.

Posted by Jon Collins at 4:10 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

God damn it. This stupid blog just erased my posting. This means that I am only going to cover the Star and Tribune article this time. It has better pictures anyway.

This blog I want to look at where the writers puts the information, order of importance.

The story was written by Randy Furst, who, I know for a fact, does not drink caffeinated coffee.

Lead- Hard news with a general overview of the ride followed by a recap of last months arrests.

-starts with a police quote that shows us the ride went smoothly
- Explains one reason why (cam gordon)
- Uses a quote to show the size of the ride rather than just bare numbers
- Talks about the police presence
- Route of ride
- Commuter reactions and interactions
- Small conflict reported
- Short history of CC
- REcap of last months ride

Obviously the news story here is the lack of conflict, if there hadn't been arrests at last months Mass than this wouldn't have been news. Randy goes first into the lack of conflict, then to WHY there's a lack of conflict. He then covers potential reasons for conflict. All in all it's an awesome organization for the piece that makes perfect sense and doesn't sensationalize (it could have focused on the small confrontation between a biker and motorist that was reported to police). He also could have used the tension that still existed represented that their was still such a big police escort, to use that as the theme of the story. That, however, would have been a little sensational.

Posted by Jon Collins at 3:52 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Refugees who fled violence is cities like Mogadishu are now facing the threat of starvation as crops fail and political instability hinders food aid. There's 13,500 children at risk for starvation according to UNICEF. The government is isolated in a few buildings in Mogadishu and pirates, rebels, and militias control the countryside.

Both the NY Times and LA Times article are exceptional (of course). They both contain excellent assessments of the current situation with analysis of what brought i about and the prospects for the future, which are not too bright. So in this blog I'd like to look at a characteristic of stories that I haven't before, the overlying theme or message that resonates with the reader.

Each story starts with a theme in the lead that is then echoed or resolved in the close.

The LA Times profiles a baby who was starving and needed medical attention. The description of the baby's actions and situation and the mothers reaction to them, resonate immediately with the reader. The writer describes how the doctors say she will die unless treated and then connects it to the rest of the crisis.

The New York Times starts with a violent conflict over a bag of food aid where there's a fight and people pull weapons. It gives the reader a sense of the conflict as well as a taste of the proximity of violence in these peoples lives.

The LA Times comes back to the baby at the end when they report that the doctor is skeptical that the mother will bring her to the hospital like he insisted. He explains that she has four other kids and closes with an awesome quote that I'll just stick in here. "Sometimes they just wait and hope the baby gets better," he said. "These are the kinds of choices mothers are having to make."
Ouch.
The writer has succeeded in opening and closing this story by giving the reader a sense of the personal tragedies occurring. And then sums up the desperation of the situation with a closing quote.

The New York Times goes back to the fight at the food shipment at the end. The writer describes that the dispute ended in a typically Somali way, with three militiamen pulling their own guns on the fighting people and making them get equal portions. He then describes the truck "sputtering" away and uses the sputtering as a metaphor for Somalia. These closing lines give an understanding of the situation to the reader that the bare facts wouldn't. Also awesome.

Posted by Jon Collins at 4:04 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

A black family in Anoka had the image of a cross burned into their lawn Friday, police are investigating it as a hate crime. One member of the family woke up at 6:45 to see the 6-feet-by-10-feet shape burned into the ground. The police were called but their are no leads. Police were later called to the house again when one of the family members was involved in a dispute with a neighbor over the incident.

The PP and the Star and Tribune took some minutely different approaches with the lead.

The PP led with the actual incident and added a conjunction about how police were "treating it as a hate crime." The Star, however, led with information that the police were investigating with no mention of the hate crime, then followed with the incident. It seems to me that the cross burning is most important so should hit your eye first. The hate crime info is also good. Just saying, like the Star does, that they're investigating is boring and flattens out an interesting twist in the case, whether or not it was racially motivated.

The Star Tribune tells the story chronologically which, I think, is appealing. The PP does better though by adding a quote from police that insinuates that it was most likely racially motivated before going into the chronology.The PP scoops the trib again in the next sentence after they've both asserted that the family doesn't have any issues with anyone when the PP looks up a case that occurred two years ago when KKK was spray painted on a house.

Obviously this is a difficult story to cover because you don't want to whip up hysteria (or be accused with it), and sensitivity to the victims is very important but it's got to be balanced with the actual details of the story. Both papers seem to accomplish this, and maybe, are a little too cautious. They both report that police were called to the residence later for the confrontation between the neighbor and one of the victims, neither report more on it. Maybe it was just some unrelated pettiness but by releasing the detail they make you hungry for more information.

Posted by Jon Collins at 3:24 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The Senate voted to condemn the Moveon.org ad which appeared in the New York Times last week. The insinuated that that four-star General Petraus, the American commander in Iraq, was a shill for the Bush administration ad and labeled him as "General Betray Us." The right-wing got all riled up and Presidential hopeful Rudolph Gulliani added a second issue to his campaign. The legislation was introduced in the Senate by Republican John Cornyn of Texas. It was preceded by a failed moderate proposal that called on the Senate to “strongly condemn all attacks on the honor, integrity and patriotism." The resolution passed 72 to 25.

USA Today
New York Times

The first thing I noticed was that the USA Today article emphasizes the partisanship of this issue while the New York Times shows more of the debate that it going on behind the scenes. For instance, USA Today breaks down the numbers and affiliations of all senators during both votes. It also emphasizes the Democratic strategy to get Republicans to break ranks and how this whole controversy has had a chilling effect on those Republicans that might have wanted to disagree with the administration.

The New York Times closes with a quote from Move.org director insinuating that this scandal is a waste of time and a political distraction. USA Today closes with previews of upcoming legislation and the likelihood that the Democratic anti-war initiatives were done for the time being.

Posted by Jon Collins at 10:18 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

A St. Paul duck had it's head ripped from it's body by a Denver man who was reportedly drunk. The lead of the Fox 9 story is factual, giving a general review of the event with who (26-year-old Denver businessman), what (Duck gets head ripped off) and where (a hotel lobby). The Pioneer Press article starts with a kind of sappy lead:
"He ripped the head off a live duck inside a hotel lobby. According to St. Paul...." Both stories then go into the details of the actual event. The Fox story sums up the charges he's facing and then uses a quote from human society offical which they then spin into a statement on the danger of keeping ducks in hotel lobbies. The PP merely stated that neither the accused nor the hotel manager would comment. It closes by noting that there are still other ducks in the hotel lobby. Unless they think this isn't an important story they could use a little more perseverance there. My first sign that it was important was that, right after I read it, I said to my roommates, "Holy shit, come and read this." Novelty.

Posted by Jon Collins at 9:31 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Since August 19, the Buddhist monks in Myanmar, otherwise known as Burma, have been staging demonstrations against the military dictatorship that has been in power since 1962. They say that the junta is "impoverishing" and "pauperizing" the Burmese people and have connected their struggle to nobel prize winner and pro-democracy activist Aung San Suu Kyi, who has been on house arrest for 12 of the last 18 years. Both of these articles are focused on the growing momentum of the protests as the monks have been allowed free reign and normal people are joining them in the streets. I thought it would be interesting to compare how two media outlets settled on different perspectives for the same story.

The first article was distributed by the AP
. The second story was written by Seth Mydans and published in the New York Times. The AP story is significantly shorter than the Times. The lead starts out by describing a protest staged by 20,000 people and gives the relevant information that it's connected to the pro-democracy leader and that it's the biggest mobilization since the '88 crackdown. The reader gets an idea of the background as well as the immediate news of protesters. The story describes recent protests, connections to the democracy movement, and uses quotes by opposition party to start exploring the implications. Afterwards it gives a quick background into the military government and pro-democracy movement.

The Times article is substantially longer. Because this story has been in the papers for a few days, the piece feels more analytical. While the AP story lists the protests and actions the Times story goes almost directly into background and then analysis. They quote a larger variety of sources from the opposition in exile and human-rights groups. The piece closes with a statement from a monk's group that calls for a widening of the demonstrations.

The AP story obviously more concerned with the current events while the Times also gives extensive background information. I'd say this is likely a result of space availability and the focus of these different news organizations.

Posted by Jon Collins at 9:12 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The Guardian Unlimited

There's a new disease infecting cattle in England called Blue tongue. It's been spreading across Europe since last summer and affects mortality rates, immune systems, and milk yields. It was discovered on one farm near Ipswich that has since been quarantined.

Because this is a breaking news story, sources are mostly from people. They are spread through out the story. In all, 10 sources are cited. Of these, eight are direct or partial quotes are two are paraphrased.

The reporter starts by paraphrasing, introducing the general situation and issues involved. They move into quotes as the complexity of the situation increases, letting the experts or people with vested interest speak for themselves. At least three times they put the attribution followed by colons and the quote. We've talked about this in class as an awkward construction but it doesn't seem to interfere with us understanding here. Also, the quotes tend to be rather lengthy, more than a sentence. Maybe it's just that British people are more well spoken than Americans but it makes me wonder what their policy is as far as ellipsis.

I think this works out quite well. Even if they had the quote, it made more sense for the reporters to paraphrase when it boil down a complex issue and help the readers understand better. The organization of the piece, however, is a little more confusing. Obviously it's a complicated issue but it might be better to get all of the concrete news about quarantine out of the way before bringing in all the background and reactions.

Posted by Jon Collins at 10:43 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Dan Rather filed a $70 million lawsuit against CBS, its former parent company and three former bosses. Rather contends that CBS used him as a scapegoat in the controversy surrounding his report on President Bush's National Guard service in March 2005.

The New York Times initially broke the story so their version is the most in-depth. It goes into the general details of the lawsuit followed by a refresher of the scandal itself. Next, it covers the allegations that Rather was denied air-time and used as a "patsy" during the fallout from the scandal. They also report that Rather makes the interesting claim that the board which was supposed to investigate the reporting was biased.

The story was also covered by the Los Angeles time, although in less depth. It's interesting to me the aspects of the case that appealed to them. It has little mention of the scandal itself, focusing on the lawsuit and Rather's claims as well as his professional trajectory, the closing sentence noting that he now anchors a small program on an HDTV channel. The LA Times, however, does explicitly mention "pressure from the white house" as a factor while the NY Times only mentions "pressure from the right wing."

Posted by Jon Collins at 10:03 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

A Man was fatally shot by St. Paul police when, according to police, he rushed them with a knife. This story was covered in both the Star Tribune, through the AP, and the Pioneer Press, through a local reporter.

The leads for them differ mainly in that the Pioneer Press opens up with a quote overheard by witnesses: "A knife-wielding man screamed, "F--- you, cops!'" It's a sensational way to open up the story. I'm not sure if it's necessarily respectful to the guy who died considering that not all the information about the shooting is out yet, or to his family. I realize the AP has guidelines against including profanity without need so it's understandable that it's not included in their story. Both authors then give the description of his girlfriend being "huddled in fear" The AP article does not go in to much depth, taking all the quotes from the police spokesperson, while the Pioneer Press contains quotes from neighbors as well as police which provide background information to the incident. However, the AP manages to get the names of the officers involved while the PP doesn't.

These stories show two different approaches; the traditional AP and a more spectacular and personal approach. For the purposes of the AP the official incident is probably enough but for local readers the descriptions of streets and neighbors is more interesting.

Posted by Jon Collins at 9:26 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

OJ Simpson got himself into trouble and gave some fodder to celebrity gossips when he performed a "sting" on some memorabilia dealers who were selling, among other items, his certificate of admittance to the football hall of fame. He's been arrested and is being charged with six felonies that could land him in jail for between six and 70 years.

The sources of these stories are New York Times and the Washington Post.

Both stories lead with the relevant hard facts that Simpson is being charged with felonies for stealing memorabilia. The Washington Post, however, adds the reminder of his past legal troubles.

Both stories first document the incident itself followed by the charges being brought. The New York Times next goes into depth about the incident itself while the Washington Post goes into Simpson's reaction and the other participants and their reactions. Both end with refreshers of Simpson being charged with a double-murder in 1994, the New York Times actually quoted the victim's families who insinuated that his conviction would bring some measure of justice.

Posted by Jon Collins at 4:58 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The article I’ve chosen to analyze leads is from the Sunday issue of the Star Tribune. It was written by Kara McGuire and is headlined, “Housing slump has builders primed to make a deal.�

The lead itself reads: �As the housing slump worsens, home builders are resorting to tactics typically reserved for Labor Day furniture sales and year-end auto blitzes.� The article goes on to describe the problems that builders have in the current housing market and the methods they are using to try to overcome it.

The lead itself is interesting; It uses ideas that are appealing and that create enough interest to make the reader want to know more. It’s also fun and not purely factual.

This lead brings up all the relevant information in the first sentence, which is: there is a housing slump putting home builders in a weird place, they use special tactics to overcome this.

I think the reader chose this lead because the subject itself is relatively boring, there was no numbers quotes or statistics that needed to be included in the lead. It organizes what could have been a relatively dry article into one that is halfway engaging.

Posted by Jon Collins at 4:36 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

This blog entry will focus articles about the arrests that occurred at Critical Mass on Friday, September 3rd. It will use primarily the Star Tribune article of September 1st by Joy Powell and the City Pages article of September 12th by Matt Snyders. It also might reference the story by Randy Furst and David Chanen of the 4th.

In this blog I'd like to concentrate more on sources and "fairness" than on actual mechanics.

In Joy Powell's breaking-news story there is only one source quoted, Minneapolis Police Lt. Marie Przynski. She provides not only the quotes but is able to frame the events in terms that are sympathetic to the police actions, "Soon, the two officers were surrounded by about 30 people, and they issued the call "officer needs help."" The story also paints demonstrators as violent, "When officers tried to arrest a rider they felt had been trying to provoke them, a scuffle broke out." What exactly is Powell insinuating when she reports that police "felt" that a rider was "trying to provoke them?" What does that entail? So, she is more or less saying that the rider was trying to get arrested or sprayed with mace, so for that reason the rider needed to be arrested? Is this a hint to dig a little more and find out exactly what the situation was?

Powell reports that many riders were part of the anti-Republican Convention protest group and then goes on to describe the police presence of 48 officers from 6 different departments and a helicopter, without exploring possible connections between these circumstances. She closes with a quotation of the age-old assertion that there were outside agitators involved.

I find it difficult to believe that Powell had no opportunity to speak to any of the 200 participants, the lawyers representing them, or the anti-RNC group. There were even videos posted on Youtube that would have shown a different side of the situation. She based her story on one source, one who had an interest in presenting a certain view of events, and her story was unbalanced in that direction.

It can be contrasted to the analysis story in City Pages by Matt Snyders. He directly quotes at least 10 people while providing background with information from others. He lets the statements by the MPD stand, but contrasts them with other observers, witnesses, and arrestees. All in all it's a more balanced piece that, without taking sides, uses the information provided by the divergent views against one another to try and get a clearer picture of what really happened.

Posted by Jon Collins at 8:48 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The blog topic I chose today is an obituary for the death of Deborah Shroyer . She is a legend in the Minneapolis cooperative community. With her sister, she started the Peoples' Pantry on the back porch of a West Bank apartment. People would come and grab a pound of real oats or whole wheat flour and leave their money in a can. This led to a huge co-op revolution in the cities; people say there were more than two dozen worker run groceries at one time in the early seventies, most of which are now consumer co-ops (except North Country). Although she became increasingly debilitated by M.S., she remained an important figure for the cooperative movement here, as did the grocery she started and which people refer to as the Motherstore, North Country Co-op. There's a good book written by Craig Cox of the Utne Reacer and dealing with the Co-op movement, which was and still is one of the biggest in the country, it's called Storefront Revolution.

The lead for this story starts out by describing the deceased as that stereotype of 60's radicals, "a flower child." This strikes me as more than a little embarrassing but is later reinforced in a quote by the Pulse's Ed Felien. In the second sentence of the lead the writer describes her activities as a co-founder of cooperatives, participant at KFAI and writer for an anti-war cooperative newspaper.

The next paragraph describes her illness and cause of death and then creates drama by describing how she persevered in her social activities even though her illness was debilitating. The article describes the effect that she had on people and goes into more depth about her activities.

So the levels of importance that the writer chose was:

1) Lead contrasting the image of "flower children" with the reality of her social activism
2) Illness and cause of death
3) Activism and community legacy
4) Family connections and pertinent funereal information

Except for the lead, which mostly irritates me for its' nostalgic baby-boomer cheesiness, the organization of the piece, as well as the people interviewed, made sense to me. My first impression of obituaries would be that they strike a fine balance between the facts of a hard news story and the emotional resonance of a feature.

Posted by Jon Collins at 6:22 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Right now it's big news in Europe, if not here, that Abdul Sattar Abu Risha, the sheik who helped bring about the "Anbar Awakening," as some have named it (the alliance of Sunni tribal elites with the United States in the Anbar province in the Western part of Iraq that has been pretty much the only success of the Iraq War) was assassinated after meeting with Bush.

I chose two sources to look at. The first is the BBC and the second is the Guardian. Obviously these two sources have completely different ideological slants they like to look through.

First off, the titles stand out. The BBC says, "Iraqi Insurgents Kill Key U.S. Ally." While the Guardian says, "Bush's 'Beacon of Hope' Killed." These headlines certainly define what the pieces are about.

The Guardian starts by talking about how Risha was lauded by politicians and diplomats. They go on to describe his relationship with Bush and his role in Middle Eastern media, which was relatively recent, as a spokesperson against extremism. They finish by listing other Sunni leaders who have been killed for cooperating with Washington.

The BBC, however, mostly focuses on the political implications, i.e., whether the Anbar movement will die, what Bush will say during his address tonight, and whether other tribal leaders will dare to take up his position. They end by quoting an interview he did where he said: "I wish we could do in all the provinces of Iraq what we did in Anbar, which is that the people and the government come together."

All in all, it seems that BBC is focusing very much on what Risha represented FOR the war effort while the Guardian focused on how this will pan out and what the implications will be AGAINST the war effort.

Posted by Jon Collins at 12:41 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The 19-year-old Eagan woman who ran a teenage prostitution ring out of her condominium and the hotel she worked at, pleaded guilty to "use of an interstate facility to promote prostitution," according to the Pioneer Press. The Star Tribune article of the same day neglected to mention the exact charge she accepted in the plea, merely mentioning that she pleaded guilty "to advertising underage prostitutes on the popular Internet bulletin board Craigslist.org." Not that anyone would understand what the real charge is, but is it helpful to hear it anyway?

The lead of the articles also differs. The Pioneer Press starts out: "A Burnsville teen pleaded guilty Wednesday to promoting prostitution with a sex ring of Eagan High School teens as "party girls" offering a "Late Night Snow Bunny Special."" While the Star Tribune takes a more hard news approach and describes the accused and the charges and jail time she faces. All in all I prefer the Star Tribune version, partly because the inclusion of "late night snow bunny special" in the PP story made me re-read it a few times, and I'm still not sure what it means.

The ST version is at least 50% as long as the PP story and explores the issue of the minimum recommended sentence being more than the statutory maximum. The writer gets some quotes from a U.S. Assistant Attorney and a cop on the unusual situation, but neglects to explain what the difference is between a statutory and minimum-recommended, who makes them, and who actually enforces them. As a layperson that's what I was left wondering, and if these questions were to be left unanswered maybe it's better not to include the information.

Posted by Jon Collins at 6:11 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)