A View on the News

The article titled "Senate studies Katrina rebuilding" was printed by USA Today and written by a reporter from the Associated Press. As its headline suggests, the article discusses the rebuildling of New Orleans and a Senate Committee hearing held on Monday. The city's mayor, Ray Nagin, stated that he does not feel there is much effort being put into repairing the "hurricane-battered city" in comparison to what is being spent on Iraq. This hearing took place almost a week after President Bush's State of the Union Address in which he failed to comment on the damage that still has not been taken care of down south. This aspect is something the article focuses on, as well.

The author, like any other reporter, had the challenge of inserting quotations and attributing sources. Obviously, Mayor Ray Nagin was quoted throughout the article, stating his opinion and view on the subject. The reporter definitely allowed the quotes to explain what was said at the hearing, instead of explaining it in his own words. For example, in the very beginning of the article, Nagin is quoted saying, "I think it's more class than anything, but there’s racial issues associated with it also." This quotation sums up a lot of what Nagin is arguing and, although the article did not discuss this specific aspect of the topic in any further detail, the reporter obviously thought it was important and that the quote speaks for itself. Other individuals were quoted in the article, all of which were done well. There doesn’t seem to be many redundancies, if any, when it comes to the quotations and what is being reported in the reporter’s words. One quotation toward the end of the article stood out from the rest. The reporter notes that a man “interrupted committee chairman Senator Joseph Lieberman as he opened the hearing. The man yelled, ‘Stand up for justice! We want somebody to stand up for justice!’� The article goes on to describe Lieberman’s reaction by quoting what he said after this man was escorted out of the hearing room. Although this is a miniscule detail, it helps bring the audience into the story; it makes the reader feel like he or she was there during the hearing. Also, that incident is something that doesn’t normally happen, which makes the article itself stand out from the rest.

This article can be found at:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-01-29-senate-katrina_x.htm

An article on the same topic was printed in the Seattle Times and was written by Michael Kunzelman from the Associated Press. The reporter for this article, titled “New Orleans mayor criticizes pace of recovery� also had the challenge of picking and choosing quotations to use in telling the story. Although there are a few quotations that are used in both articles, for the most part the quotes used in this one are fairly different from the previous. The quotes in this article are way more in-depth on the subject; therefore, the feelings and opinions of the individuals involved really come out. Take this quote for example:

"And then I look at what we're doing in Iraq and how we spend money at an unprecedented level there, how we can set up temporary hospitals and designate money to rebuild their economy, and we have this dance going on in New Orleans," he said.

The first article does not go into great detail about this aspect of the issue. It is actually paraphrased in its lead (not a quote) but is never brought up again:

“Mayor Ray Nagin told a Senate committee Monday he doesn't see the will to fix his hurricane-battered city when compared with the billions spent on the war in Iraq.�

One can see that in this article, it is a fact. In the second article the reporter is quoting someone saying it, which is a fact itself but it give the individual a personality because of the wording of the direct quotation. This is the article’s way of keeping the attention of the audience – making them feel like they kind of know these people who are speaking.

This second article can be found at:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003547140_nagin30.html

I think these two articles are different because of the diverse choice of quotations. The USA Today article seems to be more facts based and concentrates on what happened and who said what in a very straight forward manner. This is good, in my opinion, because ultimately that is the job of a reporter – to report the news. The Seattle Times story, on the other hand, is more in depth and gives character to the quoted individuals due to the detailed quotations. This article may be more exciting to read; however I don’t believe that it is a newspaper reporter’s job to give someone character or make sure the audience knows what kind of a person he or she is. It can be, in a way, biased; giving a bunch of colorful quotations by certain people and not by others. So, I think the first article is more news-oriented and credible.

Posted by Allison Hall at 3:32 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

An article from the Pioneer Press with the headline "U threatens to end tuition deal with Wisconsin" talks about the recent debate what whether the tuition deal between Minnesota and Wisconsin should continue or end. Minnesota has apparently lost a lot of money because of this reciprocity - $6 million per year in lost tuition. Wisonsin says that they shouldn't have any consequences from the large increase in tuition for Minnesota's schools. Unless Wisconsin students agree to pay as much or more than Minnesota residents do to attend the University, the u may end the tuition deal.

The article's lead is just one sentence long and gets right to the point. There is so much information on this topic and so many people involved that it would definitely be difficult to fight the urge and not fill the lead with endless information. The reporter did a good job in that aspect. The article as a whole is a little hard to follow - it tries to explain the situation clearly, but doesn't quite get there.

You can find this article at: http://www.twincities.com/mld/pioneerpress/news/local/16538804.htm

The second article I found that dealt with this topic is from the Star Tribune and was given the headline "U threatens to quit tuition reciprocity deal." This article's lead takes a little bit of a different perspective. It indicates that the "battle" has been going on for some time and explains what the issue was before. The reader knows right off the bat that this is a sort of follow-up story rather than brand new news coverage.

This article is at: http://www.startribune.com/1592/story/961067.html
Although the two articles are written from different perspectives, I still think that the second article has a better lead. For that matter, I think the second article (from the Star Tribune) is more interesting in general than the first (from the Pioneer Press). The Star Tribune article seems to go more in depth with valuable information and people involved that is captivating to the readers. I feel that the second article is way more clear, as well; it is easier for the audience to understand the situation.

Posted by Allison Hall at 10:17 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The article titled "U.S. picks up missing jet signal," found on CNN.com discusses how a U.S. Navy ship picked up signals from the black box of an Indonesian plan that crashed on New Years Day. The article also gives a re-cap on the previous accident explaining the crash; the evidence of the plane going down into the ocean and the 102 deaths.

The reporter wrote a very clear and straightforward lead for this article, stating what the event/news was right off the bat. It includes the most recent news about the even in general, but also relates it to the previous event. This helps remind the reader why this is relevent. The most important thing in this case - what happened - is the question the reporter answered in the lead; he did not answer the questions how, why, when, where, etc. The reporter also included the fact that 102 people on board the Indonesian plane died when it crashed. That fact will grab the readers' attention.

This article can be found here: http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/asiapcf/01/25/indonesia.plane/

The second article, titled "Black Boxes From Indonesia Crash Found," on the CBS News website has a lead similar to the first article in terms of language and form; however, it seems a bit more wordy than the first. The CBS article uses "jetliner" instead of "plane" and explains that flight date recorders are "black boxes." The second article also explains where the plane, or "jetliner" crashed ("into the sea") and indicates that this information was given on Thursday. It is informational and straightforward.

This article can be found at: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/01/25/ap/world/mainD8MSAAB80.shtml

Personally, I think the first article's lead is better than the second because it concentrates only on the important facts. Like I stated above, the reporter decided that what happened was the most important, not the when or where necessarily (although he mentions this later). The fact that the first article notes the deaths involved in the event is intriguing. The second article, in my opinion is a little too wordy. The details that are given is still valuable information; however it seems to be a lot of words and information for a lead, and one sentence. The fact that people died in the crash is not mentioned, which would potentially grab the reader's attention the most.

Posted by Allison Hall at 3:31 AM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

The New York Times article titled, "Bush Iraq Plan Is Condemned by State Panel" discusses the President's State of the Union Address Wednesday night and the Senate Foreign Relations Committee denoucing of President Bush's intent to increase the amount of troops in Iraq. Different proposals regarding this issue have been made by democratic senators, as well. The theme that seems to run throughout the article is the persuasion on both sides (Bush plan supporters and non-Bush plan supporters). The democrat senators are trying their hardest to get the support of other democrats as well as republicans, at which they have succeeded. The article basically concludes that the President has made his decision and although he may not have financial support going into this, he will not back down.

The lead for this article is fairly simple and straight forward, answering the who, what and when of the topic. However, starting the article with "One day after President Bush implored Congress to give his Iraq strategy a chance to succeed..." kind of delays the point of the story. The last part, "setting up thte most direct confrontation over the war since it began nearly four years ago" could definitely grab the attention of the audience. The article contains the latest news related to the President's State of the Union Address Wednesday night; therefore, it is something people want to hear about and probably is new to them.
Here is the link to the this article: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/25/washington/25capital.html?ref=world

The second article I looked at is from the Los Angeles Times, the headline reading "Senate committee approves resolution against troop surge". This article's lead highlights the fact that the resolution that the senate came to was "toughly worded", something that the other article from the New York Times mentioned but later in the story. Unlike tthe other, this lead gets right to the point, immediately saying, "A Senate committee approved a toughly worded resolution Wednesday to oppose a troop buildup in Iraq..."
You can find the article here: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-warvote25jan25,1,1727261.story?coll=la-headlines-nation&track=crosspromo

In my opinion, the lead for the first article is a little wordy, but it is still easy to understand. I believe the first part of it is in the passive tense; the point of the article is delayed. The action is coming after, when that should be the first thing the reader sees. The last part of it is a great attention grabber: "...setting up the most direct confrontation over the war since it began nearly four years ago." That would actually be a good way to begin the article. It could indicate a possible bias; the reader may ask, 'According to who? You?' BUT it would definitely grab the audience's attention.

I think the second article's lead is really easy to understand and is a clear, straightforward introduction to the rest of the story. This is in part because of the active voice coming out right at the beginning of the article. It says exactly WHAT happened right off the bat, which is important when trying to communicate to the reader. It does not indicate the name of the Senate committee like the other lead does, but I don't think that is totally necessary for the audience to be captivated and interested in reading more. The writer does indicate in the second paragraph that it is the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that approved this resolution.

Posted by Allison Hall at 5:03 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)