SUICIDE BOMB HITS US BASE DURING CHENEY VISIT
The lead of this story in the U.K Guardian newspaer seems to me like an opinion. It said, "The Taliban scored a bloody propaganda point yesterday when a suicide bomber struck the largest US base in Afghanistan, forcing the American vice-president, Dick Cheney, to scurry into a bunker." I would ask this reporter since when bombing and killing people became a propaganda? I mean simply tell readers what happy keep your opinion to yourself. I see no attribution as to who said it was propaganda. Afghan authorities or the Taliban? Did the United States say it was a bloody propaganda?
This reporter failed to tell readers who was the source that said 22 persons were killed. Hospital sources or US military? without attribution the said "Apprehension about the attacks expected this spring has strained relations between the US and Pakistan", is this an opinion or fact? Not a good job for a story of this importance.
Read it at http://www.guardian.co.uk/afghanistan/story/0,,2022915,00.html
Another version of the same story is by a Chicago Tribune correspondent in Kabul, Afghanistan. This story also has the reporter's opinion in the lead. The lead is too long, confusing and wordy. All readers would want to know is what happened. The answer is bomb attack near Cheney in Afghanistan. But instead of performing that simle task, here what readers get: "After getting a taste of the terrorism that threatens the Afghan government, Vice President Dick Cheney, attempting to give assurances that the United States will stand by Afghanistan, insisted that political leaders in the U.S. calling for a withdrawal of military forces from Iraq will leave countries in this part of the world vulnerable to dangerous "consequences.'' Did Cheney really taste Terrorism? So what is the main idea here?
There are many problems, including poor language. Besides there are too much emotions. Reporters should not put themselves in the story.