Gray Wolves No Longer Endangered in U.S.
An article published by Reuters today has reported that the United States' gray wolf population near the Great Lakes has grown to the point where the animal can no longer be classified as endangered. The government had protected the animals under the Endangered Species act over the past 30 years, when the population had reached a nadir of around 700 remaining in the 1970s. The article reports that the U.S. is also considering taking gray wolves near the Rocky Mountains off the list.
This article seems to be a simple barebones summary of the news event, with no direct quotations from officials and the only attribution included being mentioning "The U.S. government" and "The Interior Department" at the beginning of paragraphs. This is probably because Reuters is a more international news source and would not be as concerned with an event like this as some other publications.
For instance, a USA Today article focused on the same topic published an hour earlier is much longer and detailed than the Reuters article, and is also more interesting with regard to attribution. This article goes beyond the basic news story that the other reported and has quotes from those on different sides of the issue including wildlife advocacy groups and hunters. The attribution in this article is different from what we've discussed in class though, with "he told" being used instead of "he said" and many fragmented quotes introduced by lengthy sentences, for instance "Wyoming Gov. Dave Freudenthal said Monday that the agency's threat 'raises the interesting question of whether any (wolf) packs outside Yellowstone in Wyoming are even necessary.' " There are also numerous one word quotes used, with their originators identified in advance.
I realize that the articles were intended for different audiences and that the USA Today article's audience is more likely to care about the story and it's content, which necessitated the extra reporting and inclusion of different viewpoints and a small conflict of some type. However, it was the more interesting and compelling of the two to read simply because of the extra work put in, the Reuters article only communicates the barebones information required to understand the story, where the USA Today story goes a bit more beyond that level.