Hilary's Herald

http://www.startribune.com/484/story/1074845.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/24/us/24petfood.html?ref=us

The AP article, “Rat poison found in recalled pet food,� covers the announcement that rat poison was found in the pet food that got recalled this week and was the cause of the deaths of at least 15 cats and two dogs and many other illnesses.

The writer of this article had the challenge of using numbers and explaining the scientific elements of the event and making it more understandable for all people. The deadly substance found is called aminopterin, and the writer explained this very complex term to the readers by defining it as being a cancer drug used in abortions. However, the writer wrote that the amount of aminopterin found was “40 parts per million,� and did not explain that phrase very well. Otherwise, the numbers of the deaths of the animals, and the number of brands and subsequent cans and pouches of food recalled were woven into the sentences well and were effective in depicting the seriousness and high impact of the food recall.

The New York Times article, “Rat Poison Found in Pet Food Linked to 14 Deaths,� also covers the announcement and also had the same challenge of using numbers and explaining the science and jargon in a simple way. This writer, like the first writer, included the number of animal deaths, cans recalled, and the number of the $51 million class action suit to effectively show the impact of the situation. This writer did not explain what aminopterin is as well as the AP writer did because this writer first stated it as “a rodenticide that has not been approved for use in the United States or in Canada.� The term “rodenticide� makes sense because one could think of insecticide, but it is still an unfamiliar word and the writer leaves the question of why it is not approved in the U.S. or Canada. A couple paragraphs later, the writer then explains the aminopterin as “a derivative of folic acid,� and later in the same paragraph the writer finally explains it as something that was used to treat cancer and induce abortions. This writer also did not say how the animals died right away, but instead said towards the end of the article that the animals had renal failure. The AP writer, on the other hand, said that the animals had kidney failure somewhat early in the article, which is a more familiar term than renal failure. However, this writer did explain the term methotrexate simply by saying that it treats cancer and rheumatoid arthritis. Also, this writer did give more of a human interest side to the story to help connect with the readers by including the stories of two pet owners and how their pets either died or got ill, as well as some strong quotes like, “They used something that kills rats on the street into the food we trusted.�

Overall, I think that the AP writer did a better job communicating the news because this writer explained the scientific terms better than the New York Times writer, which makes sense since the AP is written for numerous newspapers and the New York Times is written for a more sophisticated audience. For example, I thought “used to kill rats� was easier to understand than “rodenticide.� I especially thought the phrase, “the derivative of folic acid,� was way too complex and didn’t add anything because I didn’t even understand what that meant at all. However, I do like that the New York Times writer included the personal stories to give a sympathetic and human interest approach that could help connect with viewers and get the point across that this situation is extremely serious and deadly. I also liked that both articles included links of the lists of the pet food that has been recalled for readers to easily refer to.