« Clinton and Obama Face Off | Main | Mary Tyler Moore House for Sale after Renovation »

Prince Harry Going to Iraq

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-harry23feb23,0,1362774.story?coll=la-home-world

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/23/world/europe/23harry.html?ref=europe

The news of Prince Harry and his unit being sent out to fight in Iraq is covered in The Los Angeles Times article, “Britain’s Prince Harry is bound for Iraq.? In addition to describing what the prince will do in the war, the writer discusses the public’s reaction of approval and apprehension in sending the third-in-line to the throne prince to the Iraq war, as well as a history of other royals who have served in wars and a discussion of this war being a different situation than the wars the previous royals were involved in, especially since England just announced that they were withdrawing troops.

This writer handled the challenges of being balanced and including many different viewpoints on the issue because she said that there was, “A mixture of approval and national unease? about the prince going to Iraq. The writer said that there is “appreciation? from some, but there are others who fear future videos of him being kidnapped. The writer gave quotes from the prince describing his desire to go with his unit to the war, a joint statement from the Defense Ministry and the royal family asking for privacy so that his locations are not being widely known, and a statement from the ministry saying that it was military decision and the royal family had been consulted. The writer also included a London defenses studies professor giving his opinion on the prince’s safety, and she also included a reaction from a former boxing champion who was arrested when he protested the decision to the prime minister, Tony Blair. Finally, the writer also included the name of a headline in the Sun newspaper that said, “1,600 out…One in,? to emphasize her statement about the prince being sent out when troops are being withdrawn.

The New York Time article, “Prince Harry, 3rd in Line to Throne, to fight in Iraq,? also covers the same event. This writer was not as in depth in including varied sources and opinions. This writer included the kind of statements from the Defense Ministry giving basic information about his deployment. As for the other sources, the writer was not as specific because he included a noncontroversial statement about the prince’s going to war from an unidentified associate who was quoted by the Press Association, another statement that the prince made about his desire to go to Iraq in The Daily Mail, and information from The Evening Standard saying that special forces would be with him for protection. Unlike the LA Times writer, this writer only said that there are “fears among his official handlers that he would be a ‘bullet magnet’ in Iraq, ? and this writer did not go into any more depth about the different reactions from the public.

In my opinion, the LA Times writer did a better job communicating the news of Prince Harry going to Iraq because she focused on the angle of the safety of the prince and how the public is reacting. The New York Times writer just gave basic information about him going to war, but the LA Times writer encapsulated an interesting angle that is unique to this event, which is whether or not it is safe to send a prince into combat in Iraq of all places. To write about the reactions, the LA Times writer used additional sources besides the Defense Ministry and Prince Harry that included the boxing champion who was protesting against it and the defenses studies professor to include more angles and opinions. The New York Times writer only had the sources of the ministry and the prince, and the writer’s only other sources came from other newspapers and one of the sources was unidentified.

Comments

Good comparison and comments!

Su