PressWatch

In a Jan. 30 Reuters article printed in the Sydney Morning Herald, the lead starts off seeming as if the reporter is telling us "World governments should take heed of the most wide-ranging scientific assessment so far of a human link to global warming and reach agreement on prompt action to slow the trend," until we see that the reporter is paraphrasing a comment from the chairman of a panel on UN report on global climate change.

The article is brief, and plucks the salient points from the report, mostly paraphrasing from either the report or the chairman. However, not all the paragraphs are attributed. For example, paragraph six reads, "Thirty-five industrial nations have signed up to the UN's Kyoto Protocol, capping emissions of carbon dioxide." Is that because it's a fact one can easily look up? The number I found by googling was 160, but that must include all countries, not just industrialized ones. The article ends on a dramatic note, also with information attributed to the UN report:

The UN report, the fourth of its kind, is expected to foresee temperatures rising by 2 to 4.5 degrees celsius above pre-industrial levels by 2100, with a "best estimate" of a rise of 3 degrees celsius.

In another artice from the International Herald Tribune entitled, "Climate-change report expected to project rising temperatures and sea levels," we get a more details about the panel itself and the idea that there may be some disagreement over how to characterize the information:

But scientists involved in the effort warned that squabbling between teams and representatives from governments of more than 100 countries over how to portray the most probable rise in sea levels during the 21st century could distract from the basic finding that a warming world will be one in which retreating coasts are the new norm for centuries to come.

Both articles tend to emphasize the negative aspects of global warming, and I suspect that trend will continue in mainstream media as the public comes to accept that global warming is largely affected by human activities. As the chairman of the panel is quoted, "It would perhaps be no exaggeration to suggest that at no time in the past has there been a greater global appetite for knowledge on any subject as there is today on the scientific facts underlying the reality of global climate change."

For a glimpse at what our administration is up to on this front, read an excerpt from the hearing before before the Committee on House Oversight and Government Reform Tuesday, when a scientist answered questions about an alleged cover up of public information on the effects of climate change.

Posted by Monique Dubos at 8:31 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Last summer a guy in St. Paul brutally killed a litter of pit bulls during what was reported as a domestic argument. I remember hearing about this a while back and wondering what kind of person could bring themselves to hurt not one but 10 puppies? Snap their necks and throw them in a dumpster? There is discrepency between the two articles I read today regarding motivation for the killings. But whatever the real reason, his frustration must have been so unbearable, all reason and compassion was replaced by rage. As far as news goes, the story makes for good, if lurid, headlines.

I found articles in both the Strib and PPress. The headlines were high in shock value, luring the reader, both with the name "puppy killer." The leads of each varied in their graphic description of the killling.


The first sentence of the Strib article is gruesome, and includes the fact that the puppy killer won't get to have pets for the rest of his life (although how that will be enforced is a question one could ask): "A St. Paul man charged with snapping the necks of 10 puppies last summer could become the first Minnesotan ever banned from pet ownership for life."

The PPress article seems less graphic, maybe it's the difference between the phrase "snapping the necks" and the word "killed": "A man admitted in court Wednesday that he killed 10 puppies and tossed their bodies into a garbage bin last summer — and agreed in a plea deal never to own a pet again." Also, the PPress article doesn't use the location of the event or the killer's home town in the first sentence, as does the Strib. In fact, they don't mention he was from St. Paul at all, but the reader can assume he lives somewhere in Ramsey country.

The Strib reporter chose to elaborate about the lifetime ban on pets and assume the reader is aware of the other details of the story, while the PPress reporter gave more background information about the crime and perpetrator. The Strib reporter's language overall was more descriptive, or maybe just more colorful, but I feel like the PPress article gave more pertinent information for a reader who had not read any details previous to this article.

Posted by Monique Dubos at 4:26 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

This case seems tailor-made for our purposes since it involves reporters, sources and attribution. In a Jan. 30 New York Times article about Judith Miller's testimony during the leak case against I. Lewis Libby the reporters disclose right off the bat that Miller was a reporter for the Times. The first two paragraphs set up the story by giving a little background on the case. In the third paragraph the reporters begin to tell what happened during Miller's testimony, and they use some very descriptive language that helps the reader imagine the atmosphere and proceedings: "As she began her testimony, she was calm and soft-voiced as she faced Mr. Fitzgerald."

The reporters go on to describe a change in Miller's demeanor in the fourth paragraph, using the following phrases: "caustic cross-examination," "composure slowly withered," "sigh frequently and grow testy in responses." These phrases imbue the scene with emotion but I believe the writers crossed a line between unbiased reporting and editorializing. But one can imagine the scene.

It would be challenging for the reporters to relate what happened without using such descriptive words, and as a reader I appreciate the dramatization. Still, if they had used more direct or indirect quotes, they may have been able to avoid sounding as if they were attempting to skew the reader's opinion. Not all their descriptions are emotion-laden; in paragraph five they write: "she said with her voice rising . . ." which is right in line with how our class is being taught to attribute. But in paragraph 17 they write: "He noted with a large measure of sarcasm . . . " In paragraph 21, the reporters neither attibute nor quote:

Beyond the drama of the day’s proceedings, the appearance of Ms. Miller as someone forced by the government to testify against a source emphasized how the case has changed the landscape of relations between journalists and government officials.

I notice that Times reporters use much more colorful language in their attributions than do other papers. Perhaps writing for the paper of record gives you special dispensation.

In an AP article written the following day, the reporter makes use of direct quotes to tell the story of the trial during Matt Cooper's testimony. Skip past the first nine paragraphs and you'll find dialogue that reads like a cheap crime novel:

Anticipating the defense attack, Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald asked whether Libby said where he heard that.

"Not in any way," Cooper replied.

Did he say he heard it from other reporters?

"No," Cooper said.

Cooper also said he didn't take any notes on that exchange and that he had posed his question to Libby "off the record." Later Cooper said off the record information cannot be attributed to the person but can be used to go get the information from others.

Libby attorney Jeffress pounded on Cooper's acknowledgments and also drew the jury's attention to the extensive notes and memos to Time editors that Cooper produced after his talk with Rove.

Jeffress asked Cooper if he ever asked Libby where he'd heard about Wilson's wife.

"I did not," Cooper replied.

His voice dripping with disbelief, Jeffress asked Cooper how he could take his exchange with Libby as confirmation.

"I took it as confirmation," Cooper said.

"Why didn't you put it in your memo to your editors?" Jeffress asked.

"I can't explain that," Cooper replied. "It was late in the day. I didn't write it down, but it is my memory."

"If somebody tells you something off the record, do you take it as confirmation?" Jeffress asked incredulously.

"I did in this case," Cooper replied. "You can use it to go to others and get a more fulsome account" that can be printed.

There is a bit of drama in that writing as well - "his voice dripping with sarcasm" and "Jeffress asked indredulously" - but the direct quotes give an account of the scene without a lot of filler.

For an audio recounting of the trial visit NPRs website.

Posted by Monique Dubos at 9:49 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=newsOne&storyID=2007-01-22T210149Z_01_N22191773_RTRUKOC_0_US-SECURITY-ROCKEFELLER.xml
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/20/washington/20intel.html?em&ex=1169528400&en=e7c60062771e4751&ei=5087%0A
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070205/ritter

In a Jan. 22 Reuters article about Democratic Senator John D. Rockefeller, he admits his frustration over President Bush's deafness to cautions from advisers about military actions against Iran. The article relys mostly on Rockefeller's own words for its copy, so it doesn't give much history or context on the issue, but it does give the reader a comprehensive look the senator's interview, more so than does the New York Times article about the same interview. The AP reporter doesn't shy from letting the reader know that Rockefeller is not a Bush supporter: "I can't imagine, given the condition and the amplitude or lack of amplitude of our troops, that we would undertake such a mission. But I can't completely cast that out of my mind because I don't know how the president makes decisions," he added. "Go back to how it was he got us into Iraq."

A Jan 19 New York Times article focues on the same interview with the Senator, who is the new chariman of the Senate Intelligence Committee. The Times reporter offers more context, such as explaining that senators and representatives are now voicing concerns over Iran, possibly in response to President Bush's recent speech, when he said he "was determined to confront what he called worrying activities by Iranian operatives in Iraq." The Times gives the reader an idea the Senator Rockefeller is not alone in his concerns: "The comments of Mr. Rockefeller reflect the mounting concerns being voiced by other influential Democrats, including the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, and Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware, about the Bush administration’s approach to Iran. The Democrats have warned that the administration is moving toward a confrontation with Iran when the United States has neither the military resources nor the support among American allies and members of Congress to carry out such a move."


The lead in the Reuters article is more straightforward than the Times article, stating who said what about whom. The Times article, on the other hand, is much wordier, and uses more emotional phrases like "sharply criticized" and "combative" when describing Rockefeller's comments about the administration's attempts build a case against Iran.

Even as Iran is in the news almost daily, there is little mention in the mainstream media about the alleged plans of the Bush administration to go after Iran. About 2 years ago, Seymour Hersh wrote in The New Yorker that many top administration officials were saying that we were building bases in Iraq not just to occupy that country, but as a staging ground for an offensive into Iran. This issue has bubbled to the surface in the alternative and foreign press, but there hasn't been much about it in the American MSM until now, except to say that the Bush administration denies such a plan. Even Newsweek had something this week, with a teaser lead like those leading up to the evening news, designed to get you to tune in ("Has George W. Bush ordered up a "secret war" against Iran and Syria?"), but ended up repeating the administration's denials (sorry, I can't find the link now, but it's in LexisNexis databank)

But now Senator Rockefeller has said it out loud, and he is in a position to know. According the Times reporter, "because Mr. Rockefeller is one of a handful of lawmakers with access to the most classified intelligence about the threat from Iran, his views carry particular weight." Scott Ritter, former UN weapons inspector, posted an article in The Nation online today, warning about what sees as the real possibility we will be lead into a war against Iran. The fears that the administration has designs against Iran are founded. Hopefully this increased attention will thwart whatever plans are in the works.

Posted by Monique Dubos at 7:25 PM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

http://24hour.startribune.com/24hour/world/story/3479186p-12720863c.html (AP article)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070121/ts_nm/chavez_venezuela_us_dc (Reuters)

Hugo Chavez gives good copy, that's for sure. In an AP article about recent comments on a Venezuelan broadcast the reporter chooses some juicy quotes with accompanying imagery, such as of bikin-clad Brazilian dancers. He uses the word "tirade" to describe Chavez' broadcast, although the words Chavez himself uses, such as "go to hell, gringos" and "you've forgotten me, missy" referring to Secretary Rice, already paint Chavez as hot-headed. In both this AP article and a Reuters article, he is referred to as an ally of Cuba, which might cause readers to view Chavez as misguided, at best, extreme, at worst. Is the linking of the two an attempt at demonization? And there is a discrepancy between the reports. The AP reporter writes that Chavez calls Rice "missy" and the Reuters reporter writes that he called her "my little girl." I wonder if that's a discrenpancy in the translation from Spanish to English. The original Spanish word might have been "mija," which means "my little one."
Both articles are in response to a decree by the Venezuelan legislature that may give Chavez the power to enact legislation on his own, which the US has criticized.

Posted by Monique Dubos at 10:40 PM | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBacks (0)