5 Soldiers Killed in Iraq In Two Roadside Bombings
Five American soldiers were killed in two seperate roadside bombings Sunday in Iraq. Four soldiers were killed and two soldiers wounded during patrols in Diyala province. The fifth soldier was killed while clearing roads in northwest Baghdad. Also Sunday, three Sunni mosques were attacked south of Baghdad, one day after 11 people were killed and 45 wounded in a truck bombing outside nearby a Shiite mosque.
The Washington Post has two reporters on the story, Karin Brulliard and Saad Sarhan. The story was confusing because it gave lots of facts in little space. In just one paragraph they wrote about three different bombing that has happened within the past two weeks. The headline says, "5 U.S. Soldiers Killed in Iraq In Two Roadside Bombings." I think that topic should have been emphasized throughout the whole story. If both reporters wanted to add other bombings that had happened then it should have been added at the very end because it is irrelevant to the headline topic.
They also mentioned other killings about three chlorine-truck bombings in Anbar. I think that the reader will feel overwhelmed by reading about five different bombing stories that has literally been packed into one story. Because of all the different stories, this one story lacks good transitions. The story talks about many different bombings that it might have been difficult to make logical transitions between paragraphs. I think this could have been because of limited space.
I think that the headline should have been adjusted to what the article was actually going to talk about. This way the reader will have choice on what they want to read. If the reporters wanted to talk about other bombings that has happened in the past, then they should have waited until there was enough space to allow a time consuming piece.
The New York Times wrote about the same story. I think the associated press did great job delivering the message. They write, " Roadside bombs killed five American soldiers in Iraq on Sunday, including four in a single strike in the volatile province of Diyala, northeast of the capital, the military said."
The second paragraph focuses on how the bombings happened, a very important detail. This gives the reader the how in the story that the Washington Post forgot to write about. At the very end of the article it talks about how many people besides soldiers who have died.
I think that the New York Times did a better job in reporting the facts and the story's event. It was clear and got to the point. When the reader read the headline, the reader from Times actually read what they thought they were going to read. The Washington Post reader was given a lot more then what was expected.