Keith's News Corner

http://www.twincities.com/mld/twincities/news/local/16784693.htm

Summary: A Chaska resident was found, nearly frozen, Saturday. He dies at the Hennepin County Medical Center later that day. His core body temp was only 77 degrees. A snowplow driver found him lying on the sidewalk.

The Pioneer Press article feels like it is missing some pieces. The parents of the 19-year-old man are made to look incompetent in their clueless-ness of not caring why their son isn't home at 3 p.m. the day after the party he'd attended.
The lead, while giving all the important info, does nothing to draw the reader into reading the rest. They could read the lead and know everything they need to know. The author also awkwardly puts a call for anyone with information to step forward, including the phone number, right in the middle of the article. It would have been much more fitting, and it would've helped the flow of the article to have had the statement at the end.

http://www.startribune.com/462/story/1027583.html

The Star Tribune article, on the other hand, offered a lot of information that the Pioneer Press story left out.
The parents weren't worried because they thought their son was staying at friends. The man was only wearing pants and a shirt when he was found. Also, while you could suspect alcohol was involved while reading the Pioneer Press story, the Star Tribune states that blood-alcohol tests are being done.
Even the Star Tribune's lead:

"Bob Humphrey was disturbed when his 18-year-old son didn't come home Friday night during a winter storm warning, but figured he was staying with friends."

Captures your attention and interests you into reading to find out what happened.
The story structure and level of in depth reporting done on the Star Tribune's article was of much higher quality than
the Pioneer Press' article. While I felt I was being given only some of the facts while reading the Pioneer Press story, I felt confident in the Star Tribune's story.

Posted by Keith Hovis at 12:42 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

http://www.startribune.com/587/story/1008331.html

Summary: Al Franken, who has decided to run for U.S. Senate, is meeting criticism over whether he is actually a serious candidate or a comedian. Franken insists he is both.

This article by Star Tribune writer Dane Smith while seeming to be a commercial for Franken also counteracts his attempt to make himself not seem like just a comedian. The author starts out by stating that Franken feels he can be a comedian and a politician, but then uses the rest of the article to quote jokes Franken said in his political appearances.

http://www.twincities.com/mld/twincities/news/local/16724652.htm

The Pioneer Press story does much better job presenting Franken as a candidate who is trying to be serious in his campaign. The author presents the story through Franken's trip to the Iron Range to campaign. The writer uses examples of people in the Iron Range who support him. The story ends with how Franken has been preparing for debates on serious topics facing the U.S.

The Pioneer Press' story was much better in presenting Franken as a serious candidate. While this is what it seemed the Star Tribune was attempting to do, the writer was not able to accomplish it

Posted by Keith Hovis at 5:44 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/02/18/news/afghan.php

Summary: 8 U.S. soldiers were killed and 14 more were injured in a helicoptor crash. The Taliban are suspected in the attack as Taliban activity is known in the area where the helicoptor was shot down.

In the International Herald article, written by Abdul Waheed Wafa and Carlotta Gall. It's lead:

"An American twin-rotor Chinook helicopter suffered engine failure and crashed Sunday morning in southeastern Afghanistan, killing 8 soldiers and wounding 14, said a spokesman at Bagram airbase, north of Kabul."

Does an effective job of telling its audeince who, what, when and where in one sentence. The article does a weird thing in that it goes from talking about the incident to talking about other recent helicoptor crahses sxome by terrorist groups and some due to other factors. The authors hide the fact that U.S. and NATO groups raided three Taliban complexes. It seems odd that raids on Taliban complexes should be put after a statement that helicoptors have crashed due to bad weather and techinal problems, a fact that doesn't seem as important.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/6372813.stm

Since this event happened to U.S. troups, I decided to look at a foreign media outlet to see how they reported the event. In the article released by the BBC, the event is reported completely differently. They wrote that the crash was accidental, even including the fact that the pilot radioed in to say that they were having troubles. They even state that a NATO official stated that the attack had nothing to do with Taliban. While the author includes a fact that the International Herald writer also did, the fact that a Taliban official took credit for the crash, the BBC writes that this is not true and that other such claims have been declared unfounded.

The subtle facts that the BBC included really made it interesting to see the differences between the two stories. As reporting the facts is important in journalism, this discrepency is odd. It really brings up the idea of which story is telling the whole story and which one isn't. In this case, I think it's the BBC.

Posted by Keith Hovis at 12:53 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/18/fashion/weddings/18FIELD.html?ref=weddings

Summary: Starting Monday, New Jersey will be the next state to legalize civil unions between gay couples. As gay couples prepare for their oppertunity to be considered partners legally, the articles discuss the benefits of being allowed civil unions. Also, as New Jersey prepares to legalize civil unions there are plenty of those who still oppose the act.

In the article by the New York Times, the lead of the article is very non-specific, it could've been written at anytime with an open space for the the author to put in the state's name at any time.

"Tomorrow New Jersey officially joins Connecticut and Vermont in offering its gay and lesbian residents the option of forming civil unions, and the debate about what those unions represent is continuing."

Devan Sipher, the article's author, interviewed different New Jersey gay couples, and after the lead uses quotes about what being allowed civil unions means to them. The quotes he included such as, “We’re being allowed on the bus, but we’re being pushed to the back.� seem overdramatic and cliche. He also includes quotes form gay couples who still wish that they could have the marriage title in order to have a big ceremony. This quote serves the purpose of a segue into talking about actions that have been taken to prevent gay people from marriage status.
The end of the artcile focuss on how gay couples are going to make their union cermenoy more like a wedding even though it won't have that title.
The structure of the article and certain quotes the author includes like "I know that we will continue to fight for the wording to be changed," make it seem as though gay couples won't be really happy until they can have marriages and not only unions. While this may be true for some couples, the benefits civil unnions bring couples is probably enough for plenty of couples who now can be legally recognized by their state.

qstr=eXJpcnk3ZjczN2Y3dnFlZUVFeXkzJmZnYmVsN2Y3dnFlZUVFeXk3MDc5OTY4JnlyaXJ5N2Y3MTdmN3ZxZWVFRXl5Mg

In the article by the North Jersey Media Group, the writer structures their article as more of a "Frequently Answered Questions" forum, with common quesitons about civil unions and their answers. While this is somewhat effective for curious readers, it wouldn't capture any reader who wasn't interested in the topic. There are many ways the writer could've re-formatted their article into more of an article format, but for whatever reason they chose to write this way. The article was wasn't interesting in the format it was presented and the author could've done more to make it better.

Both articles suffered from poor decisions on the part of the author and/or editor. With simple changes both articles could've been much more effective.

Posted by Keith Hovis at 12:16 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/02/12/news/portugal.php

Summary: Portuguese leaders have decided to legalize abortions. Jose Socrates, the Prime Minister, calls all those who oppose the act "bad losers." The decision required a fifty percent turnout in voting. There was only 44 percent turnout, but Socrates decided to go forth with the legalization anyway.

The author of this story made an interesting choice in making the story not only about the legalization, but also a personal story of Socrates. This idea is set up right in the lead:

"Prime Minister José Sócrates of Portugal said Monday that it was his duty to promote legislation liberalizing the country's restrictive abortion law, calling those who challenge his decision 'bad losers.'"

The author, International Herald's Elaine Sciolino, went in to Socrates background, discussing the fact that he is Christian, a group that is protesting the legalization. The author does a good job of using Socrates background and personal views in helping to show his side for why legalizing abortion is so important. Instead of being editorialized, the details helped with the strength of the story.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/12/world/europe/12portugal.html?8dpc

In this article for the New York Times, a weird thing occurs. This article, like the International Herald's article, is written by Elaine Sciolino, only this article doesn't talk about Socrates background, this article focuses on the fact that even though there was such a lower voter turnout, causing the vote to be declared void, Socrates still legalized abortion. In this article Sciolino writes a much different article dealing with past attempts to legalize abortion in Portugal. This article also include quotes saying how Socrates decision will now be a sad period for Portugal.

The differences in stories is really stunning to me. Both articles are supposedly written by the same author, but both articles have a different slant. It is hard to say which article shows the author's true intent and which one misconstrues her words. The differences could be attributed to the different publications, New York Times and the International Herald. Both media outlets have their own position, which is reflected in their version of the article.

Posted by Keith Hovis at 11:22 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2007/02/11/ap3416173.html

Summary: Presidential hopeful and ex-mayor of New York Rudy Giuliani has announced that an important element of his campaign for President will be his strict gun policy. Giuliani said that as Mayor of New York his strict gun policy helped lower crime rates. His stance is meeting a lot of opposition and potential loss of voters from the Republican party. Giuliani also talked about how he is also pro-choice and pro-gay rights. Two other hot topic issues that will bring him opposition from Republicans.

The San Francisco Chronicle article took Giuliani's platform issues and made the relate-able to its readers by looking at Giuliani from a California standpoint. The author writes that while Giuliani's stance isn't what most Republicans agree with, he may find Republican supporters in California. The author looks at the parallel of Governor Arnold and Giuliani. This approach to the topic is smart since if the author was to write about how Republican's disagree with Giuliani in a state where Republican views are probably pretty similar, he would have lost the interest of his readers.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/politics/20070210-1635-ca-gopconvention.html

The San Diego Tribune's article on the other hand focused mainly on the fact that Giuliani's beliefs aren't popular with Republicans. The story also talks more about Giuliani's campaigning, where he's been and who's behind him. Besides not creating a connection to the article like the San Francisco Chronicle reporter did, this story is still well written. The author does a good job of showing why Giuliani is a good candidate and why he's not.

Posted by Keith Hovis at 10:28 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

http://www.twincities.com/mld/twincities/news/local/16679014.htm

Summary: A St. Paul resident died Saturday as he attempted to extinguish a fire. Ronrico Madison had put a pot of oil to boil. He had forgotten about it when he saw the oil was on fire. Dousing it with water, he caused the flames to grow. The fire spread through his house and Ronrico suffered serious burns. He was pronounced dead at the hospital.

The Pioneer Press story did two things wrong. One: The author included useless information such as the fact that the mother had taken a cab home from Wal-Mart when she found the house burning. And Two: They turn an article about a man's death into an article talking about the man's criminal record. Not only was this not relevant to the story, but it is also offensive to the family. The story has an inconsistent flow, changing from reporting on the incident to reporting on grease fires in general to reporting on Ronrico's criminal history to giving helpful tips on stopping fire. It felt like I was reading a news article infused with elementary school fire training. The author also uses an ironic quote that doesn't seem appropriate by ending the family's part with a quote by his sister saying that they "loved him to death."

http://www.startribune.com/462/story/994956.html

The Star Tribune article while being much shorter, makes up for the fact by being sensitive to the family and sticking to the incident alone. The author adds a few note son grease fires but only in the context of the Fire chief. The article was short and to the point which is exactly what the story needed to be. The story didn't have enough behind it to make it really compelling to the reader, which is what the Pioneer Press writer attempted to do. The story was quick and factual, allowing the reader to move on to more important stories.

Posted by Keith Hovis at 6:19 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-iraq4feb04,1,4285454.story?coll=la-headlines-world&ctrack=1&cset=true

Summary: A dump truck pulled into Baghdad carrying a ton of explosives. The blast generated by the explosives killed 130 and injured more than 300. Other small explosions were also reported outside the city. The explosion came just hours after Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, a revered Shiite cleric, had made a plea for peace in the country.

The article, though written by a U.S. paper, the L.A. TImes, evoked a very negative American image in its lead.

" A dump truck hauling a ton of explosives hidden beneath boxes of food exploded in the center of a crowded Baghdad market Saturday, killing at least 130 people and injuring more than 300 in one of the deadliest blasts since the U.S. invasion of Iraq."

This comparison of such a horrible act to an act committed by the U.S. creates almost a disgust in ourselves as Americans and a feeling remorse in knowing that without that last part of the lead we would have went on with our day happily condmening whoever bombed Baghdad.
Whether this anti-American sentiment was intentional or not, it makes it all the more easy laugh at the idea of President Bush stepping into to denounce the attack when we have done the same thing.
Tina Susman, the author of the piece, goes on to write about other recent attacks giving an idea of how even though this explosion was bad, it isn't a secluded event.

http://www.washtimes.com/world/20070203-115718-8786r.htm

In comparison, the article "Deadliest Blast Kills 135 in Iraq" by Ros Colvin from the Washington Times, uses a similar reference to the Iraq war, but with a more neautral tone in regards to America:

" A suicide bomber killed 135 persons yesterday in the deadliest single explosion in Iraq since the 2003 war began, driving a truck laden with a ton of explosives into a market in a mainly Shi'ite area of Baghdad."

In contrast to the L.A. Times article, the Washington Times article focuses only on this particular event. It makes some references as to what's being done to prevent more attacks, such a Bush stating that we, the U.S., are going to deploy 21,500 reinforcements to help on the opffense in Baghdad. This addition of information into the story creates a feeling of American heroism.

This contrast between an anti-American article and a more patriotic one, is an interest comparison to see. Especially when both papers are within U.S. borders, just opposite coasts. Personally, I like the L.A. Times article more, not because of the Anti-American sentiment, but because I enjoyed the author putting this incident in context with other attacks. I also like to see reporters taking a stand and being allowed to report articles that many people, particularly the government, don't agree with. No matter what side I side with.

Posted by Keith Hovis at 9:49 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/03/AR2007020300760.html

Summary: The recent hurricane that ripped through floirda has left the southern state's residents struggling to pick up the pieces. The storm, and it's aftermath, killed 20 people.

The Washington Post article, "After Storms, Florida Picks Up the Pieces" by Peter Whoriskey, Tries to connect with it's audience by the use of questions in his lead, but only makes the story start off weak in its execution.

"Where did our wedding photo get to? What about the insurance policy? And where are my dentures?"

The lead reads is almost too humorous for a story about the devestation that Florida faced. The reference to dentures is in regards to the fact that a majority of the people killed by the storm were elderly. Some of the people the author chooses to interview are also bad choices for the story. One person he tlaks to is a prison inmate out cleaning debris as a part of a prison volunteer program. Even if it's right or not, people are not going to sympathize with the words of a convicted felon. Also the fact that he is only helping because of a prison program, regardless of whether he would've helped outside of prison or not, takes away from the sentimental feel the author was going for in this story.
The author also tries to add cheap humor to connect with the audience better, but rarely succeeds; as shown in this quote:

"Gene and Edna Suggs, both 70, who built a brick house in Lady Lake 33 years ago. It weathered tropical storms and the rampages of the Suggses' three sons, who grew up there."

The author then goes on to bring up the Suggs' relgious views. He ends with a quote by Gene saying that Satan brought the storm not God. While Whoriskey tried hard to add humor and personal touches to evoke sympathy with the audience for the victims of the hurricane, he ended up making his story hokey. The piece is laughable in how personal the author attempts to write the story. In complete contrast to his efforts, you never connect with any of the victims instead the reader merely passes over this story without another thought except the natural human response of care for the victims, a response they would've had without reading this story.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/04/us/04florida.html?ref=us

In contrast, The New York Times' article, "Attention Turns to Salvage After Deadly Florida Storms" by Lynn Waddell, was able to evoke emoption from the audience by simply reporting the facts of the destruction and adding a few quotes by credible sources such as President Bush and R. David Paulison, director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency. While the lead in this story isn't much better focusing on Bush's promise to provide monteary relief instead of the recovery process itself, the rest of the story was written and edited smartly by the New York Times staff. Also, Waddell tied her story into another big story which was also reported on, the death of 18 endagered whooping cranes. This tie-in will move the reader onto the next story, creating a well rounded, connected product.

By approaching the topic more factual and not emotional, the New York Times' author was able to connect with the reader better than the Washington Post writer who tried to capture the feelings of those in Flordia.

Posted by Keith Hovis at 9:21 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

http://www.startribune.com/462/story/975934.html

Summary: Star Tribune writer Curt Brown reports that due to the recent death of an 8 year-old boy from St. Paul by the flu, doctor offices have been exceedingly busy. The boy, Lucio Satar, had a special Type-A strain of influenza. After being hospitalized on the 26th of January, certain complications arose leading up to his death. According to the article, 36,000 people die from flu related complications each year. 100 of those deaths are children.

Brown did a good job at turning a tragedy into an informational article. While talking about Satar's death, Brown also uses the article to give statistics and facts about the flu. His article almost becomes more than an article, but a public service announcement calming those who have become worried since the boy's death. The article is, in that respect, very timely. It comes right after the boy's death in a time of panic, in an attempt to settle people's fears. Even Brown's lead not only informs but serves a purpose in the large scope of the article:

"Doctors' offices were fielding dozens of calls Thursday from worried parents and patients after the rare influenza-related death of an 8-year-old St. Paul boy."

This lead is great because it not only gives all the important information about the boy's death and cause, but it also brings in the worried public coupled with the idea that the death was rare. Therefore, the worrying is for nothing. On top of the article, the Star Tribune also included a nice sidebar with more information as to where to go for flu shots and tips for the flu season.

http://www.twincities.com/mld/twincities/news/local/16592106.htm

In contrast, the Pioneer Press' article attempts to accomplish the same effect, but doesn't quite succeed. The article's writing is not strong enough to settle as worried public. Right off the bat, the lead is not sufficent enough to set the pace for the story:

"An 8-year-old from Ramsey County died of complications related to influenza Wednesday morning, according to the Minnesota Department of Health."

The lead captures one of the most important aspects of the story, the boy's death, but not the second part, the increased public worry about a death from the flu. Also, the author seems to throw his facts around without any real structure. Going from saying that there was an outbreak in a nursing home to saying that the state has listed the flu as widepread. While these items do sort of go together. There is no real transition or logical segue.

Overall, the Star Tribune did a much better job at publishing a coherent piece that works to calm the public. The Pioneer Press on the other hand, while attempting to do the same thing, published a piece that was muddy and unpolished.

Posted by Keith Hovis at 5:42 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)