A View on the News

Singer-songwriter Sheryl Crow, a huge supporter of the fight against global warming has been on a U.S. college tour promoting this call to action. Now, she has some possible solutions to the problem, posted on her website, that include a limitation on how much toilet paper one can use after using the restroom. She says if we all limit to one square of T.P., we can help save trees and therefore oxygen.

The first article I looked at is from www.theage.co.au, an australian news source. It can be found here: http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2007/04/24/1177180611060.html

This article basically wraps up everything that Crow posted on her website, highlighting the toilet paper comment. It gives statements from the site but no actual quotes from Crow or her spokesman, which is stated at the end of the article. The reporter shows that this is somewhat timely, seeing as she has been on the road, exposing people to this issue:

**Crow said she had spent most of an environmental tour of US college campuses thinking of easy ways for people to battle climate change.**

The article does not really show an impact that this has on everyone, since these suggestions are just Crow's ideas. However, they incinuate that they could eventually affect everyday people or could encourage them to follow through with some of Crow's ideas. The article clearly has prominence because it talks about a famous "rockstar." The reporter does not show two sides to the issue, however it is common knowledge that global warming is being heavily debated right now. One phrase actually showed some bias on the reporter's part in the article:

**"I have designed a clothing line that has what's called a 'dining sleeve.' The sleeve is detachable and can be replaced with another 'dining sleeve,' after usage," she explained in the increasingly bizarre posting.

This takes away some of the reporter's credibility and certainly hints at the fact that there is more than one side to the issue. Asking people to use one square of toilet paper when using the bathroom and posting it on her website is a bit unusual, which gives the article novelty. It possibly is an action the "first of its kind."

The second article I read is from the National Post in Canada and can be found here: http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=72a39c08-1e25-4291-9ffe-9de4372e76a3&k=30838

At the top of this article, in the byline, it reads:

**Agence France-Presse, with files from news services."

Oddly enough, the first article that I read was basically a part of this article. The whole first 2/3 of this one is the first article, with a few small words changed. However, it is longer, using information from other articles, apparently, and goes into more detail about the global warming issue as a whole. The article has timeliness, and is shown more clearly than the first one deos because it discusses what Crow and Laurie David, who accompanied her on the tour, were doing this past weekend:

**On the weekend, Ms. Crow along with Laurie David, producer of Al Gore's Oscar-winning documentary An Inconvenient Truth, attempted to convert Karl Rove, President George W. Bush's top advisor, to their greener way of thinking.**

The impact isn't clearly stated in this article either, it is only incinuated. The only impact that is shown is the article is the impact that Crow and David are trying to make on government officials. The article obviously shows prominence, because of the celebrities involved. What this reporter included that the other did not was the conflict:

**However, a fracas broke out after the two women approached Mr. Rove at the White House Correspondents' Association dinner on Saturday night and urged him to take a "fresh look" at global warming.

Recriminations between the celebrities and the White House carried over into Sunday, with Ms. Crow and Ms. David calling Mr. Rove "a spoiled child throwing a tantrum" and the White House criticizing their "Hollywood histrionics."

The one thing all three parties agree on is that the conversation quickly became heated.

Like Mr. Gore, who has been criticized for maintaining a energy-guzzling Tennessee mansion that costs more than US$28,000 a year to heat, Ms. Crow is struggling to reduce her carbon footprint.**

This is important to the issue of global warming and an insight into what Crow and David's mission is on their tour and what their mission was for the government, which turned into somewhat of a conflict. The event is a novelty of some sorts for the same reason as the first article.

I think the second article is much more complete and shows real news while the first one just gives the basis. Although they both start out the same, the second one elaborates and gives some good details as to why this is timely and why Crow is putting these suggestions on her site. However, I think the real knews is the "Recriminations between the celebrities and the White House." In my opinion, that should be the lead and focus of the story.

Posted by Allison Hall at 1:57 PM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (0)

The American Thoracic Society will be publishing an article in the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine that indicates a possible connection between the consumption of cured meats (such as sausage, bacon and luncheon meats) and chronic ovstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).

The first article I read is from FOXnews.com and can be found here: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,266295,00.html

The article shows timeliness, since this study will be published in the second issue for April 2007 in the journal. It shows very thoroughly the impact this has on the public by describing the study and other causes of COPD, as well:

**Cigarette smoking is the leading cause of COPD, but with a projection of rising to the third leading cause of death worldwide by 2020, researchers are looking for other causes.**

**This study of 7,352 participants over the age of 45 found that those who ate more than 14 servings of cured meats per month had a significant lower lung function test and increased odds of COPD, as compared with those that did not eat cured meats.**

These are just two of the many facts that show the impact individuals' behaviors have on their health. This event has novelty because it is a brand new study and, simply, because it is a human interest story. As far as the supplemental values go, the article shows that the events have currency, necessity and helpfulness. The article has currency because it something worthy of discussion - our health. The things we eat and the decisions we make impact our health, and therefore it is important to know about. The article has necessity and helpfulness for the same reasons.

The second article I looked at is from scientificamerican.com, originally from Reuters Health. It can be found here: http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?alias=cured-meat-consumption-li&chanId=sa003&modsrc=reuters

The second article shows timeliness, for it mentions the fact the this is "new research." Through the results of the actual study, the article shows the impact eating cured meat can have:

**Subjects who consumed cured meat at least 14 times per month were 78-percent more likely to develop COPD than those who never consumed it, a statistically significant difference. The corresponding increased risk of mild, moderate, and severe COPD were 11 percent, 46 percent, and 141 percent.**

However, this article does not go into the smoking aspect of COPD - something the first article did. This article also has novelty, for it is a new study that was conducted with new imformation coming out of it. It has currency, necessity and helpfulness for the same reasons as the first article did; it is worthy of discussion and people should know about the possible effects of eating a lot of cured meat.

I think the second article is more to the point and concentrates on the actual information that has been released through the study. The second article goes into detail about smoking and how that worsens lung function and puts individuals at risk for lung disease. However, this is not new information. It wouldn't be bad to have a short paragraph stating that it still the leading cause of lung disease, but there is no reason to go into detail about it. Almost everyone knows that.

Posted by Allison Hall at 2:53 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

A report was released on Sunday stating that Danish researchers found a way to convert individuals' blood type from A, B and AB to the universal donor type, O. This could possibly end blood shortages.

The first article I looked at is from ABC News and can be found here: http://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory?id=3001613

The article has timeliness because it tells the reader right off the bat that the report was released on Sunday. The article also shows that the event has impact, because it is breaking news. It has an international impact:

** "The enzymatic conversion processes we describe hold promise for achieving the goal of producing universal red blood cells, which would improve the blood supply while enhancing the safety of clinical transfusions," Clausen and his team conclude.**

This information isn't given to the reader until the last paragraph. The reader may ask him or herself, 'Why does this matter?' if they don't pick up on the implied meaning of this new discovery. It is a novelty, since this kind of process has never been done before. The article shows this by telling of the studies done before this one and how they have failed:

** More than two decades ago, researchers began testing the concept of removing the surface proteins on red blood cells to create universal blood cells, according to the report in the April 1st online issue of Nature Biotechnology.
In 2000, findings from a trial showed that type B red blood cells could be converted into type O cells, which then survive normally when given to type A and O individuals. However, the usefulness of this approach was limited by the large amount of enzymes required for the conversion. **

It is also a novelty because it is human interest. It has currency, as well; because it has an impact on so many people around the world, it becomes worthy of discussion. Therefore, because this event has an impact on so many health-wise, it is a necessity, not to mention helpful for people to know about. It is important for people to know about this option.

The second article I read is from ImediNews, found here: http://www.imedinews.ge/en/news_read/30732

It is a short article, but contains many news values and explains the situation to every day people, without the scientific jargon. The article does not say he day this information was released but it does say "April 2" in the dateline. This is one of the few downfalls to this article, for the reader doesn't know exactly what day this came about. The article does show the event has impact, even more so than the first. The headline itself, "Breakthrough could end blood shortages" shows the impact it may have on the public. In comparison to the first article, titled, "Blood types A, B converted to type O just doesn't do it - it doesn't get to the point. This article's lead shows the impact right away:

**An international research team led by a Danish scientist has developed a process to change blood types, which could spell the end of blood shortages.**

The article doesn't show novelty like the first one did; it doesn't go into past studies on this procedure. But it does show currency, necessity and helpfulness in the same way the previous article does.

I think that both of these articles are plainly written, but contain enough news values to make it helpful and show it has an impact. In my opinion, the reporters could have found a way to directly relate this finding to the people, state what this discovery could do for us as a human race. It could save lives, clearly, but it doesn't say that in the article. It is up to the reader to think about that. Also, the first article uses a lot of jargon - I don't feel that it was simplified enough for the every day person who isn't educated in scientific terms to read. The second article spells out the details of what the procedure is about very clearly and directly.

Posted by Allison Hall at 3:23 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

After rumors surfaced about new actors playing some of the roles of the lead characters in the Harry Potter movies, the original cast signed to return for the remaineder of the Harry Potter films. There are 3 films left to be released; one of which is coming out this summer, two have yet to be filmed.

The first article I looked at is from the Los Angeles Times and can be found here: http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/movies/la-et-potter27mar27,1,5883652.story?coll=la-headlines-entnews&track=crosspromo

This article does not clarify when this news was released about the actors signing on to the rest of the 'Harry Potter' films; the audience does not know when the information was available to the public, which in turn doesn't give the event timeliness or currency in regards to news values. The article shows the impact playing the roles has had on the actors:

**Watson, for one, was rumored to be considering other alternatives, rather than continue with the role of Hermione Granger. (Grint confirmed as much when he told the media recently that Emma wanted out: "Emma doesn't want to do it any more. She's tired of being known as 'that girl from Harry Potter.' ")**

This quote actually shows conflict as well, with the rumors going around about whether Watson was going to sign or not.

**While the movies have made gobs of money world-wide and made household names of the cast, their back-to-back filming has consumed much of the lives of the young actors.**

This quote also shows the impact on the actors, and mentions the international impact as well. However, it is a general statement. This article definitely has prominence because of the famous people invovled, the actors. This article has entertainment value, most of all, and some helpfulness for those who want to know about the films - who will be in them and when they are coming out:

**The latest Harry Potter entry, David Yates' "Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix," opens July 13.**

The second article is from the Houston Chronical and can be found here: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ent/4661376.html

This article makes note that the news was released on Friday:

**Actors Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint and Emma Watson will return as teen wizards Harry Potter, Ron Weasley and Hermione Granger in the final Harry Potter films, Warner Bros. Pictures announced Friday.**

This starts off the article in a good way, making sure that the audience knows when this information was released and when the decision was made. This makes the article have timeliness and currency. This article also shows the impact that the movies have made on the actors, as well:

**"I could never let Hermione go," she said. "I love her too much and love what playing her has meant to me. I'm excited and honored to be finishing what I started and playing her in all seven of the films."**

**Grint, 18, added: "I've been so proud to play (Ron) and loved every second of being part of this world."**

This gives the article impact, however it doesn't show much impact on the viewer, except for the comment about the 'Harry Potter' books being best-sellers. The article has prominence for the same reasons as the first - the famous actors. The article has entertainment value and helpfulness, including a statment at the end of the article that is very similar to the last one:

**The fifth film in the series, Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, is slated for release in the U.S. on July 13.**

This could be considered helpful information for those who would like to see the movie.

I think that these articles are a bit boring, personally. They don't have a lot of color in them; I think the reporters could have had more fun with them and make them more interesting to read. The second article was a little more fun to read because of the quotes; however, I don't think they were incoporated into the story very well. It seems like they were just put in there. It's an exciting event, especially for 'Harry Potter' lovers; therefore, I think the reporters should have geared the article toward them, giving facts about the ticket sales, book sales, etc. This article could even go into the phenomenon of 'Harry Potter' and possibly encourage those who haven't seen the movies or read the books, to do so.

Posted by Allison Hall at 4:17 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

On Monday, Yahoo! introduced a new search system called "OneSearch" for mobile phone users. It is specifically for an instance when one is searching for topics that are only relevant to a certain area of the country. Users just type in a zipcode or city name and they are set to go.

The first article I read is from www.techtree.com and was posted on March 20 (today). The article does have some major news values that is shows within it. The event is timely, seeing as Yahoo! just announced it on Monday. The article shows clearly that this new search system has impact by giving examples of situations where individuals may need the system:

**For instance, instead of popular movies or critical reviews, OneSearch lists local theaters playing a particular movie, user ratings of the movie, and news headlines related to it.**

I know there are many times when I, personally, would like to look up movies right on the spot and quickly; this shows the impact it will have on the consumer, as well as the supplemental value of helpfulness. This news event has some sort of prominence, not having to do with a well-known individual or celebrity, but rather a well-known institution - Yahoo! itself. Because it is such a huge company, it will make news. It even mentions one of Yahoo!'s competitors:

**Scoring one up over Google, Yahoo! reportedly yesterday introduced its new Internet search system for mobile phone users, OneSearch that promises locally relevant search.**

Even if we don't use Yahoo! to search online, most people know Google; therefore, the audience will be able to recognize the name and make the assumption that Yahoo! is a big and powerful company. This article shows the novelty of the event, since One Search is a new idea in the technological world and on the internet. Going back to the supplemental values, this event has currency because it is worthy of discussion - it may become an emerging trend.

This article can be found here: http://www.techtree.com/India/News/Yahoo_OneSearch_for_Mobile_Users/551-79887-643.html

The second article I looked at on the same topic is from www.unstrung.com and was also posted on March 20. The reporter of this article considered many news values, as well. It is timely and shows that it is so by stating that they just released the info yesterday. The article describes what Yahoo! hopes to do for consumers by giving a quote from the senior vice president of connected life, Yahoo!:

**"Yahoo! oneSearch has already started to change the mobile search game by fundamentally improving the way consumers' access and use the Internet on their mobile phones," said Marco Boerries, senior vice president of connected life, Yahoo!.**

This article is more clear about the fact this new search engine is an expansion of a previous idea:

**Yahoo! Inc. (Nasdaq:YHOO) has today expanded the reach of the popular new Yahoo! oneSearch service to the Mobile Web in the United States. **

OneSearch, the article says, was first available only on the web through computers. Now, they are taking it to a new level and offering to mobile users on their phones in the United States. Therefore, the impact is on a smaller group of people - those who own cell phones. It also lessens the value of novelty in the article, because it isn't as unusual anymore, now that the reader knows this search engine has been online for awhile already. This article gives another quote from Boerries, which shows what people think of it so far:

**"Consumers that have tried oneSearch love it, telling us it's easier and more helpful than any other mobile search services they've used. We are delivering the results consumers want with just one search, not a list of Web links."**

This shows the impact is has and possibly indicates what peoples' responses will be in the future. The event has prominence for the same reason as the first article showed: Yahoo! as a name. The article shows currency for the same reason as the first - it may be an emerging trend. It is obvious in this article that Yahoo! is making this a trend within it's own organization because it is making it available on mobile phones in addition to the internet on computers.

This article can be fond here: http://www.unstrung.com/document.asp?doc_id=119837

In my opinion, the second article gives the reader a bigger picture of what the situation is; I think it is important to know that this is an expansion of an idea. I hadn't even heard about OneSearch online, and all of a sudden I'm reading about it going to cellphones. I think both articles could've done a little bit of history on the OneSearch at the end of the article, just simply stating when it first appeared online, etc.

Posted by Allison Hall at 3:21 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

NASA's Cassini spaceraft, launched in 1997, has sent pictures back to Earth of Saturn images that show "never-before-seen images" of the planet above and below its rings. Scientists have apparently been waiting for years for images like these.

The first article I read is from the Los Angeles Times and titled, "Images show Saturn from new angles." It is a very short article and doesn't actually show many news values within it. It is obviously timely because the pictures were recently released. NASA is a famous institution, which would make this event have some sort of prominence. It has some novelty, since it's not every day that we receive photos like these of other planets. Other than that, I don't feel the article shows much news value except that it's new information. It does show the impact on scientists:

**"Finally, here are the views that we've waited years for," said Carolyn Porco, Cassini imaging team leader at the Space Science Institute in Boulder, Colo.**

But it does not explain what these photos will do for science. Are the photos just pretty to look at? Is that why it is a huge deal? Or should it be implied? The skeptic may not understand why this is important to know. It could be that this article is more for entertainment - these photos and the video would be fun to look at.

This article can be found here: http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-sci-saturn3mar03,1,4501695.story?coll=la-news-a_section

The second article I read is from the CaribJournal (Caribbean News) and is titled, "Cassini Stunning Images, Movie of Saturn." This article is not as plain and boring as the first one because it includes more information about the event. This article shows that the event is timely, for it specifies when the pictures are released and when the information was released. It has prominence, and discusses NASA and the Cassini mission a bit at the end of the article:

**The Cassini-Huygens mission is a cooperative project of NASA, the European Space Agency and the Italian Space Agency. The Jet Propulsion Laboratory, a division of the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena, manages the Cassini-Huygens mission for NASA’s Science Mission Directorate, Washington. The Cassini orbiter and its two onboard cameras were designed, developed and assembled at JPL. The imaging team is based at the Space Science Institute, Boulder, Cololardo.**

It gives the reader a better idea of the pictures, how beautiful they apparently are and, therefore, how unusual it is. The article doesn't give much information about the impact of the event either, but it does tell of what the future will bring; what more Cassini will do:

**Cassini’s highly inclined orbits around Saturn will be progressively lowered so that, by late June — three years after entering orbit — the spacecraft will once more be orbiting in the ring plane.**

That at least shows some sort of goal that will hopefully be met.

This article can be found here: http://caribjournal.com/2007/03/03/cassini-stunning-images-movie-of-saturn/

In my opinion, both articles are just reports, which is good, but they don't really relate the new information to the everyday reader. The second article gives us a link to where the video and images can be found, which is nice, but it doesn't go into at all what the impact of these new things will be on science or anything. I feel that would be more interesting to read. However, I do think the second article is better than the first because of the detail it goes into about the new findings.

Posted by Allison Hall at 3:58 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Chimpanzees in the West African savanna are being observed making spears from sticks to hunt small animals. This is reportedly the first time scientists have seen such a thing: animals other than humans making deadly weapons.

The first article, from the Chicago Tribune, has some key news values. It definitely is timely, seeing as this was just reported. It may turn out to be an ongoing study that the public will be updated on. It definitely has an international impact, currency and necessity, although it is implied. The article doesn't really explain why it is important. The article does show that this event is unusual..for it's the first of it's kind and it was not necessarily expected.

This article can be found here: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/la-fg-spears23feb23,1,4250895.story?coll=chi-news-hed

The second article I looked at is from indystar.com. This article explains more of why the event is important. Like the other article shows, the event is timely and has an impact:

**So some experts said it was unclear whether it was a bit of luck or an indication that chimps have a more advanced ability to hunt than was thought.**

The article also snows that this article is unusual because it hasn't been seen to this extend up until now:

**"It's not uncommon to have chimps use tools. But to use them in the context of hunting" is nearly unheard of, said Jill Pruetz, an anthropology professor from Iowa State University who led the research team.**

The subject does have currency and necessity, arguably, because of the impact on science it may have. However, this is all implied.

This article can be found here: http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070224/LOCAL17/702240468/1012

I felt that both of these articles just reported the facts, which is important and relevent. However, I think it would be more interesting if the reporters had gotten the scientists' opinions on what this means for anthropology, evolution theories and science in general. It was definitely an interesting story but I feel that the readers need to know why this is important. I took an anthropolgy course, so I can grasp the possible implications of this huge find. However, for those who don't know much about human evolution, it may be difficult to understand how huge it is.

Posted by Allison Hall at 2:53 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

The first article I looked at was from CNN.com and titled, "Needle-free FluMist protects kids better." It is about FluMist, a nasal spray vaccine that is supposedly, "better at preventing influenza than traditional flu shots in older babies and children, according to a study sponsored by its maker, MedImmune." The article reveals that flu shots don't provide as much protection to children under 5 than to adults. FluMist was tested on 8,400 preschoolers and the study found that those who were given the spray had a much lower rate of getting the flu than those who were given the injection.

This news event is most definitely valuable to the public, containing many elements that we discussed in class. It is timely, seeing as Medlmmune has just released this information. The "event" or "information" is ongoing and upcoming because the U.S. FDA hasn't approved it yet, however the article does say:

**A decision from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration is expected by the end of May.**

The study that was done will have a definite impact on those who read the article - internationally- because it is health-related, which affects all of us. It affects our decision making when it comes to ourselves as well as for parents when they are trying to keep their kids healthy. In a certain aspect, this information comes as unexpected, because the flu shot is normally given if people want to be protected from developing the flu. The article says:

**"The big difference is the induction of antibodies in the nose, which is important because this is where the flu virus usually enters the body. The nasal spray flu vaccine appears to induce a more complete immune response," Belshe said.**

This kind of information may be something that not everyone knows, which makes it very newsworthy and important. Currency is a value that also comes into play, for it may be an "emerging trend." Like I mentioned before, this concerns humans' health, which is necessary and helpful information.

This article can be found at: http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/02/15/flumist.reut/

The second article I found on the subject is from businessweek.com and is titled, "Medimmune shares jump on study data." Although this article is basically about the same "newsevent" it takes a different perspective because of the magazine's audience, which is a variable value. So, in that case, some of the values are considered in a different way. Timeliness applies to this article in the same way as the first one- it's recent information that has been revealed. It's ongoing and upcoming as well. From this article's perspective, the impact is different. Not only may it affect people on an individual level as far as health goes, but it is obviously affecting the stock market:

**Medimmune stock gained $2.17, or 6.9 percent, to reach $33.42 in afternoon trading on the Nasdaq Stock Market. Shares have traded between $24.87 and $37.45 over the last 52 weeks.**

This piece of information was not in the other article from CNN.com because its target audience is different; it's broad, while business week's is very specific. The lead shows this right off the bat:

**Shares of biotechnology company Medimmune Inc. jumped Thursday on news of a published study showing its FluMist nasal spray was more effective in children than the flu vaccine injection.**

The currency value is definitely important because it will become worthy of dicussion amoung those who are investing:

**"The data from this study were previously shown by MedImmune, but exposure in such a high-profile journal is sure to get the attention of many pediatricians who may otherwise have been slow to pick up on the advantage of FluMist over the traditional flu shot," he wrote in a note to investors.**

The fact that Jason Zhang, a Prudential Equity Group analyst, said this in a "note to investors" signifies that this may be something big that investors may want to consider. This article may be a form of entertainment for its readers, since the market audience is so specific.

This article can be found here: http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D8NAC9600.htm

In my opinion, both articles did a great job of explaining the situation and information to it's specified audience. I, personally, found the first article more intriguing; but that was only because I don't know anything about and don't really have any interest in stocks. The CNN article was for anyone and could be easily understood by almost anyone, while the second wasn't as easy to follow because of the diction. It was interesting to see the differences in reporting and the different angles the reporters took in writing the two stories and needing to market toward their audience.

Posted by Allison Hall at 11:46 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The first article with the headline, "Apple vs. Apple: We can work it out" appeared in the Chicago Sun-Times and is about the recent legal dispute that has been settled between the Beatles and Apple Inc. The dispute was about the rights to use the Apple name and the logos on the iTunes online music store. The agreement that the two companies came to in the end was that Apple Inc. will own all of the trademarks related to "Apple;" they would also "license some rights back to the Beatles' Apple Corps Ltd" as well, the article said.

The article is written in the inverted pyramid style, where the information at the beginning is the most important and the info at the end is the least. The article begins discussing the dispute and the agreement that the two companies came to. The "backup" information includes explanation of the dispute and where it originated as well as a quote from Apple Inc.'s Chief Executive:

**Apple Inc. Chief Executive Steve Jobs said in the statement that the resolution ''should remove the potential of further disagreements in the future.''**

Then the article goes into some supporting points, discussing what Apple Corps is, some more background on the dispute between the two companies and also some information about iTunes and the fact that the Beatles aren't a part of the iTunes cataloug. Although this info may be interesting, it could easily be taken out if space is needed in the paper, one of the pros of writing an article in the inverted pyramid style.

This article can be found at: http://www.suntimes.com/technology/244661,CST-FIN-Apple06.article

The second article I looked at is from the New York Times and is titled, "After Long Dispute, Two Apples Work It Out." I believe this article is written in the same inverted pyramid style as the first one. The first three paragraphs serve as the lead and the most important information about the news story: the settled dispute and what exactly is the new agreement. After that, the article goes into what speculation is about Beatles' music being available on iTunes now and a quote from the Chief Exectuvie of Apple Inc:

**"We love the Beatles, and it has been painful being at odds with them over these trademarks,� said Steven P. Jobs, chief executive of Apple Inc., who is widely known as a huge fan of the Beatles’ music.**

As the article continues, there is more "fluff." There is more information that isn't necessary to have but adds some interesting facts to it, such as a quote here:

**“It is great to put this dispute behind us and move on,� Neil Aspinall, manager of Apple Corps, said in a statement. “The years ahead are going to be very exciting times for us.�**

In my opinion, I enjoy the second article because it is more interesting to read due to the details at the end. However, it does have a lot of information that is off the topic. As a reader, I learn more about Apple Inc. than I do about the actual agreement between the two companies. The first article is straight forward, gets the news out there and is pretty much done.

Posted by Allison Hall at 4:43 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

An article appeared in the Houston Chronicle, written by Irwan Firdaus of the Associated Press and titled, "Indonesia floods leave 200,000 homeless." Like the headline suggests, this article is about the massive flooding in Indonesia that has taken place over for four days now. 20 are dead and 200,000 have been forced from their homes. The article discusses the fears of the officials and citizens and what everyone is doing to help.

The article actually doesn't have many quotations in it. Many of the things that were attributed weren't direct quotations at all, but more facts on the matter. What I thought was interesting were the direct quotes that were used, such as this one:

**"We fear that diarrhea and dysentery may break out, as well as illnesses spread by rats," Dr. Rustam Pakaya, from the health ministry's crisis center. "People must be careful not to drink dirty water."**

This quote could have been paraphrased - it is just plain information. And the last part, "People must be careful not to drink dirty water"...of course people shouldn't drink dirty water! It states the obvious. But I do understand the challenge the reporter had to overcome. There wasn't much to chose from obviously because in this situation there can be only so many sources available. This quotation is a little bit better:

**"Fortunately, people here are helping each other," said Yusnizar, who goes by a single name.**

Although it is nothing spectacular, it conveys a little bit of emotion, coming from an individual who is going through this experience and is a witness to all of it. The reporter also mentioned that this individual goes by a single name, which I thought was interesting and smart of him to do, to make sure that readers know it wasn't a misake.

This article can be found at: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/world/4524938.html

The other article I found was on Forbes.com, was written by Irwan Firdaus for the Associated Press (the same reporter for the other article I looked at!) and its healine reads, "Indonesia Floods Leaves 145,000 Homeless." Obviously, the numbers of these two articles are different. The second article was written 5 hours before the other, which is a good example of how quickly things can change in a few hours. The second article sounds a lot like the first one (with word choice and quotations both) probably because the author is the same. One quotation that was in this article and wasn't included in the other was the following:

**"Jakarta is now on the highest alert level," said Sihar Simanjuntak, an official monitoring water levels at key rivers across the city.**

I'm not sure why this wasn't included in the other article. It is not extremely exciting but it definitely reinforces the urgency of the floods. The second article also includes this paragraph:

**Government agencies are struggling to provide aid to the homeless, many of whom are staying with friends or family on higher ground, or at mosques and government agencies. Some are holding out on the second floors of their homes, refusing to be relocated by soldiers in rubber dinghies, officials said.**

The first article only has the last sentence. The reason why the first article didn't include some of these quotes or attributed information was because of a legnth constraint on the article. Maybe the reporter had to weed out some of the details to make his first article shorter.

This second article can be found at: http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2007/02/04/ap3392562.html

Both articles are well written and give a lot of information within them. They give the important information right away and credit any sources and quotations. However, I felt that the second article is more interesting to read because of those details that I mentioned. It "hits home" when the reporter talks about the people that are living through this horrible time and how they are surviving. That is what is going to spark human interest - thinking about those who are living through it as they read this article.

Posted by Allison Hall at 2:30 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | 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)