On Thursday in Somalia's capital Mogadishu, an untold number of civilians were killed and wounded. The fighting was the Somali givernment forces and Ethiopian troops against Islamic insurgents. The fight has been the called the heavist fighting in Modgadishu since the early 1990s. On Friday, insurgents shot down an Ethiopian helicopter gunship and mortar shells slammed in to a hospital, leaving dead bodies piled in the streets and hundreds of people wounded.
The Washington Post headline: Somali Civilians Hit Hard In Fighting in Mogadishu. Reporter Salad Duhul wrote about the event and how it's affecting the civilans. He writes, "The victims are the civilans. Only the civilainas are dying and getting wounded in this fighting," said Khadiko Farah Warsome, 45, a mother of seven who lives in Modgadishu. The International Committee of the Red Cross said dozens of people have been killed since Thursday and more than 220 wounded, most of them civilians.
Duhul gave a quote from a civilian. This is an important perspective to place in a story because it shows the outcome of two fighting countries. It is not the leaders who are being hurt, but the people who are stuck and cannot defend themselves. I think Duhul made a wise choice in placing a quote from a civialian. Ethiopia says its troops have killed more than 200 Islamic insurgents since the assult.
Duhul goes on about how significant this fight is. He writes, "But the fighting is so severe and widespread that bodies were not being picked up or even tallied. Hospitals are overwhelmed, with patients sleeping on floors."
I think Duhul is really painting the picture for his audience. Simply using the phrase, "so severe" can place an image in the reader's mind. The event is so severe that patients are sleeping on floors and dead people are not even being counted or picked up. Duhul is using very powerful language. I think that it's so powerful that it almost sounds opinionated. But because of the circumstance I think that it can be allowed.
After giving insight into the fighting, Duhul gives possible anwers to all the fighting. He writes, "The insurgents are linked to an Islamic movement that was driven from power in Ethopian soldiers. The United States has accused the movement of having ties to al-Qaeda, an allegation the group denies. He adds, " The insurgents have long rejected any secular government and have vowed to fight until Somalis becomes an Islamic emirate.
Duhul does a fine job giving an explanation to the crisis. I am curious on why he felt the need to mention al-Qaeda. The insergents themselves say they have no ties with al-Qaeda, so why write about the accusations? I think that Americans can associate the seriousness of a crisis based on affliation. I think Duhul purposly placed al-Qaeda in the middle of the story to once again bring back memories of 9/11 and let Americans engage in imagination of what these civians feel, because Americans were in their situations in 2001.
The New York Times headline: Truce Fails to Stop Somali Fighting by the Associated Press
The story summarizes the truce that was broken between the government and Islamic insurgents. AP says that the only country contributing to peacekeeping is Uganda, which has about 1,400 troops and lost its first soldier on Sunday.
The story goes on about the fears of the conflict widening. AP also quotes the Foreign Ministry, "Egypt is following with great concern the military confrontation in Somalia." There is so much conflict happening that I would guess a journalist could find a better quote than that. The quote doesn't show any emotion or significant meaning. The quote is pointing out the obvious and fails to let the reader relate to the crisis.