Analysis on structure in a news story

| No Comments

The reporter of one of the stories I read which was covering the movement of chemical weapons in Syria explained what happened in the lead and used the next four paragraphs to further elaborate on the news that Syria has moved some of their chemical weapons to an unknown location. Each of the first five paragraphs attributes the information to either intelligence, US officials, or the defense secretary (when quoting him specifically).
The next three paragraphs explain the background (why this is newsworthy) and the concern about the status of these weapons in the hands of such a volatile nation. It is revealed that President Obama had, at some point (doesn't say when or in what context), threatened serious consequences if these weapons were used or moved. I think that if this was attributed properly to Obama I would have placed it higher up in the story.
Also, mentioning that Syria is in possession of what intelligence says is the world's largest stockpile of these kinds of weapons would be something that I would try to work into the first couple of paragraphs.
This is an effective article, but a person would need to know some background to understand the magnitude of the situation, and for that reason, I would rearrange things a little bit. However, the reporter does a nice job of concisely covering the main points of a very complicated, ongoing debacle.

Leave a comment

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by pete8904 published on September 30, 2012 8:43 PM.

First Presidential Debate on Wednesday was the previous entry in this blog.

Syria moves chemical weapons is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.