North Korea Nuclear Disarmament Talks Advance
An Associated Press article put up by the Washington Post today has reported that a tenative agreement in talks on Tuesday could bring about the first progress shown in the 3 years of attempts at nuclear disarmament of North Korea. Six nations are involved in the talks, among the North Korea, South Korea, Japan, Russia, China, and the U.S. The proposed deal would provide North Korea with financial aid if it were to disarm its nuclear weapons, with the five other countries involved agreeing to help provide the aid. However, North Korea has not yet specified how much energy aid it would receive under the deal, and some are concerned the country may demand too much.
The article is a bit longer than the average article due to the history of attempts at reaching an agreement, and the lead emphasizes the uncertainty of the conclusions and agreements made. There are several smaller chronologies in the article, with scopes that range from detailing events of the past few ours to those of the past several years. The issue has a history that the article recounts, and there's also plenty of speculation involved. The article addresses all of these, and gets opinions and remarks from the spokespeople for the different countries involved in the talks. The article states that there is a possibility of North Korea rejecting the draft and demanding more energy, and it ends by recounting what sparked nuclear disagreements with North Korea in the first place.
The subject was covered similarly in a Reuters article published in the Malaysian Star, with the news being emphasized as differences blocking the draft disarmament deal being resolved. Negotiations were slowed by North Korea's demand for aid, but agreements were reached that could result in a formal deal within the next day or so. The envoys are again quoted in the article, with positive quotes that reflect the news of a potential agreement. However, they also note that it is too early to be certain on the draft, and these quotes are used after the more positive sounding ones signaling the progress. There's no real chronology blocks in the story, it's more of a standard summarizing of events that've happened in the past, like your average news article.
The Associated Press article definitely seems to offer more details about the story, so I prefer it in that respect. It's important to give details of the past talks and attempts at a resolution in order to know where the situation stands currently, and the Associated Press article just does a better job at fleshing out the history a bit more, I think.