« Kenya Jetliner Crash | Main | Gunflint Trails are Evacuated »

Bombings killed 8 U.S. soldiers and 30 Iraqis

In Baghdad, eight American soldiers were killed in a roadside bomb on Sunday. The bombings tolled the highest single-day deaths this year. The deaths were announced on a day when car bombs killed 30 Iraqui civilians.

I read two stories, one from the Washington Post and the other from the New York Times.

In the Washington Post story, reporter Karin Brulliard wrote in the lead about how the deaths in Iraq threaten to deepend "sectarian tensions." Bruillard is taking an aggressive angle, she is stating that the deaths are creating deep tensions. Brulliard needed to verify this statement and she did a great job in doing so. She quotes Maj. Gen. Rick Lynch, "All of us believe that in the next 90 days, you'll probably see an increase in American casualities because we are taking the fight to the enemy...this is the only way we can win the fight."

I think Brulliard did great in finding a good quote and supporting it with a reliable source. The problem that I see is that she is taking one opinion from a servicemen and crafting a controversy herself. This is huge because she is being biased. She only quotes Lynch, which proves my point on how she is taking information from one angle and creating it as news. She is setting a scene that there is deeping tension in the Iraq because of these bombinbs. Yes, I know that the war has done a number on soldiers and civilians, but Brullard should fuel the fire by stating an opionion as a fact.

Brulliard goes on about the future of the U.S. forces by quoting Lynch. She writes, "Lynch predicted that by August or September, U.S. forces would have a decisve effect on enemy formations." I would not personally use this quote because once again it's supporting the lead which is purely an opinion.

Although Brulliard uses a better quote in the following paragraph. She writes, "Lynch said he did not feel the same way about Iraq's political process, 'I don't see there will be signficant progress on the government side between now and fall...you can't just build a government overnight." Now this quote produces a much better angle on Lynches point-of-view NOT the point-of-war from Lynches perspective. Even though Lynch is in high ranking he still not a reliable source to get the war's future, UNLESS there were more than just one source.

In the New York Times story, it was reported by the Associated Press. In the lead it says, "Roadside bombs killed eight American soldiers in seperate attacks Sunday in Diyala province and Bagdad, and a car bomb claimed 30 more lives in a wholesale food market in a part of the Iraqi capital where sectarian tensions are on the rise." Once again they say that tensions are on the rise. Maybe they are but how can the journalist prove that tensions are truly there without finding mulitiple sources?

The AP story goes on it talks about past events that produced many deaths. It also quoted Iraqi civilans, which I think is a little better than the Washington Post because it's getting the perspective of the Iraqi people. The quote says," He called the attack 'a terrorist act aimed at creating more sectarian tension and strife." NOW this is right. The journalist was going to the people who are living in the city and who deal with death, injuries, sorrow, and war everyday. A journalist needs to go to the people who witness the ordeals, not a Maj. Gen. who doesn't experience these events at a personal level.