Main

April 30, 2007

British Terrorists Convicted in Bomb Plot

An Associated Press article that ran in the Washington Post today has reported that five members of Al-Qaida were arrested for planning to bomb a nightclub, and Biritsh power plants and a company doing work in Iraq. All five men were British citizens, and were determined to be linked to Al-Qaida and convicted of the crime after a year of deliberation in what has become Britain's largest terror case. The men were linked to a 2005 bombing of a London subway car, and surveilance on one man revealed his intentions were terroristic. The link between the plotters and the actual bombers was kept secret to ensure a fair trial. These revelations go against what was said by the British government in 2005, which was that the attacks were perceived as unknown and unpredicted. All five men were sentenced to life in prison. Recorded conversations revealed the men conspiring to terrorism. Piecing together the plot took effort, but eventually happened.

The lead is very long, and gives some details I feel are kinda superfluous, like the targets for instance. However, it does reveal all the necessary details of the article. From here there is more information given about the suspects how the intelligence arrived at their conclusions. The article flows from point to point, going from the suspects descriptions to connecting them to the 2005 subway attack to discussing the British government's intelligence surrounding that issue, then to the trial and sentences that the men received. Britain's counter-terrorism chief is quoted directly and receives full attribution, commenting on the mens' link to Al-Qaida. The article ends with a quote from the MI5 chief, who says that his men will regret not preventing the 2005 bombings.

Coverage of the story on a UK website called The Argus is tailored much more specifically to residents of the UK. The lead feels week because it just focuses on one man being convicted for some reason, instead of the fact that there were 4 others convicted with him. This detail is mentioned later on. More specific locations familiar to British readers are mentioned, including where the terrorists hail from and what their planned targets were. Details about those being convicted are given again, along with the fact that they denied the charges. No direct attribution is used, with quotes all being paraphrased for the most part. It ends with the detail that the jury were out for a record number of days.

I prefer the coverage given by the Associated Press article in the Washington Post, because there's more specific detail about the link between the incident and the bombings in 2005, not to mention more attribution and direct quotes from those in positions of authority. The other article didn't seem to give the same level of information, and the lead feels like it doesn't tell the whole storyi mmediately anyway, which was odd.

April 23, 2007

Nigerian Elections Over, Results in Dispute

Umaru Yar'Adua has been declared the winner of Nigeria's presidential poll, a poll that is being rejected by the opposition and labeled a "charade" by outsiders. Yar'Adua was Nigeria's ruling party candidate, but opposition and observers have labeled the election a fraud due to violence influence the decision, and rigging of the polls, according to a Reuters article published in the Washington Post. Yar'Adua received over 24 million votes, 18 million more than his closest rival, Muhammadu Bahari. The vote should result in the first time that power in Nigeria has been handed over from one civilian to another. European Union observers noticedm any flaws and criticised the result. However, attempts to change the result could result in instability for the country as its current leader is required to hand over power by the end of May. Over 60 people have been killed so far in election related violence.

The article's lead gets across that Yar'Adua won the election, and also mentions in the same sentence that the results are being dismissed and rejected. The article then goes into explaining the significance of the election and the opinions of specific groups such as opposition and observers. There are no direct quotes immediately from election winners, only partial quoted of phrases in quotation marks. The first full, direct quotation comes from a European Union observer in the second section of the article ,which focuses on the accusations and evidence of fraud in the election. The current leader of the country is given an optimistic quote near the end when the piece turns to a more speculative tone about the future of the country, and there's statistics about election violence and government action, with the government labelling those who oppose the election results as coup-supporters.

An Associated Press article run in the New York Times about the issue focuses on telling more about Yar'Adua early on, but also mentions the opposition to the election results in the lead. His opposition's qualms about the results are given earlier on, and the article actually describs the scene of the elections on Saturday which is effective and gives a clearer idea of what exactly the corruption that went on might have been. Many of the same figures and positions are established, while generally giving more on Yar-Adua's life and accomplishments.

I prefer the Associated Press article because it gives more information on the issue. The both have similar structures and patterns of expositions, it's just the the Associated Press article has more information on the candidate elect, as well as the political climate in Nigeria and how the election will affect the country. For someone wanting to casually learn about the issue ashorter article might suffice.

April 17, 2007

French reports show French secret service aware of al Qaida 9/11 planning.

A Reuters article published today on defensenews.com has published an article saying that the French daily paper Le Monde has published information saying that French secret services produced 9 reports looking at the al Qaeda threat to the United States, and knew the terrorist organization intended to hijack an aircraft. The reports show that French's foreign intelligence knew about the planned attack as early as January 2001. The reports show that the attack was meant to happen at some point in 200, but was pushed back. Le Monde quoted a former secret official at France's DGSE secret service agency as saying that although France was aware of a potential hijacking, it was unaware of the plans to fly the plane into a building. The documents also showed that BIn Laden was receiving aid from family members and senior officials in Saudi Arabia ahead of September 11th.

The article's rather short, and its lead simply gets across the key information about the potential knowledge of the hijacking. It then goes into detail about the specific documents that the article is talking about, giving their length and content and who saw them. A senior official with France's DGSE secret service is quoted, and talks about the significance of the documents and the actions taken by those in possession of them.

An Associated Press article published online through Forbes also covers the issue and gives more details about the reports themselves, which are important. More attribution is used in the article as well, more quoes from those in the CIA and other intelligence agencies. It is revealed that the note listed potential targets, and also that it was not all that different from intelligence that the U.S. also possessed. The chief of staff with the French DGSE is quoted again.

Between the two articles I prefer the Associated Press' coverage because it contains more information and attribution, and it's clear there was just more reporting done to get to the final article. For this reason I prefer it to the Reuters article.

April 9, 2007

Iraqi Citizens Protest U.S. Occupation on Anniversary of Baghdad's Fall

An article published in the New York Times has reported that Iraqi citizens today marched in the city of Najaf to protest the fourth anniversary of Baghdad's occupation. The demonstration was held at the request of the Shiite cleric Moktada al-Sakr, and consisted of tens of thousands of those loyal to him marching in the holy city of Najaf, burning American flags, and cursing America. The demonstration is reported the largest in the city since 2003. Sadr went into hiding in mid-February, and the protest remained peaceful throughout the day as he had requested. The protest unfolded as heavy fighting continued in parts of Diwaniya, a city in southern Iraq where American and Irqai troops are fighting against the Mahdi army.

The article is covering a breaking news story and has been updated frequently throughout the day. The lead introduces the event and the central figure who provoked it, and goes on to describe the significance and consequences of the protests. The story involves a lot of details, and the article does a fine job of giving them all to the reader. The history is necessary to understand the current events. The article also places the events in the context of the fighting going on against the Madhi army, giving even more of a recent backdrop for the events. Direct attribution is used when quoting a speech given today by Sadr, as well as the American military colonel and the Iraqi national security advisor.

An Associated Press article that ran in the Washington Post today follows a similar stregy of providing an insane amount of information for the reader to drown in. The event is explained early on in the article and its lead, but Sadr is not introduced until the third graph. However, once Sadr is brought into things the Post article actually does quite a bit to explain who he is and what his influence has been, which is helpful. The article quotes a lot of the same sources the TImes article does, and overall they have the same format of presenting all these details and attempting to do it in a reasonably readable and comprehensive manner.

Frankly I felt like both of the articles were borderlind unreadable about 4-5 paragraphs in due to the abundance of detail, and the Post gives more crucial information early on so I guess I prefer that one. They explain who Sadr is and what his significance is immediately after mentioning him, unlike putting it off like the Times article did. It's also shorter, but still manages to quote a lot of the same people. It does the same thing in less words, so I prefer the Post article here.

April 2, 2007

Earthquake Hits Off Coast of Solomon Islands; 12 Dead

According to a news article posted on Reuters.com, an earthquake has triggered a tsunami off the coast of the Solomon islands in the South Pacific, killing 12 people and leaving others missing. The quake was shallow and had a magnitude of around 8.0, a very severe quake, and triggered a tsunami around 2 stories tall. The tsunami hit residential areas and destroyed homes, and government/red cross disaster teams are working in the area to give aid to those who need it. It is expected that more quakes are to follow, as the Solomon islands are located in an area prone to extensive volcanic and earthquake activity.

Reuters reports the story by describing the events and giving facts and figures, intially. The lead gets across the main event with ease, then gives figures and talks about how the quake progressed. Solomon Islands' government officials are quoted, and Australia's reaction to the event is given, that being that they put out a warning out of fear of a repeat of a previous tsunami threat. The second chunk of the article gives some reaction from residents of the islands, and figures/predictions by the expert seismologists saying that more quakes in the coming days are likely.

An article on the same event was published in the New York Times and featured contributions from the Associated Press. At the time this article was published, exact death numbers were uncertain. There's also not as much data in the article that compares it to similar, past storms like the Reuters article. However, after giving the basic information, the article does an excellent job of introducing the human element that people can relate to, by giving the personal accounts and reactions of people who lived through the disaster, which is its strongest point. It also gives some technical information about plates being what caused the quake and tsunami, something the Reuters article left out.

I feel like I prefer the New York Times' work getting the personal accounts, but there's more concrete and definite information in the Reuters article, so in that respect I think Reuters is better. Each succeeds at different things but I guess I'd prefer the Reuters one.

March 26, 2007

Security Council Sanctions Fail to Perturb Iran

The United Nations Security Council unanimously voted on Saturday to adopt new sanctions against Iran after its refusal to quit production of nuclear materials, according to an article in the Los Angeles Times. The decision was meant to show Iraq that continued defiance would leave it without aid, while submitting to demands would bring it rewards. Iran's foreign minister naturally opposed the sanctions, calling them "unlawful". This is the third sanction placed on Iran, and is intended to block the country's acquisition of materials used in nuclear weapons. The decision was made with some trepidation ,and an incident involving the capture of 15 Britons by Iranian forces in the Persian Gulf on Friday added to the atmosphere.

This is a very detailed article about an ongoing international affair that has developed over the past few months. The new restriction being the latest development in the saga, it is mentioned immediately in the first section, giving the defiant reaction of Iran and the aims of the EU. The next chunk of the story is devoted to detailing the history of sanctions placed upon Iran and what they have each meant in terms of their effects they have put into place. The final piece of the article is spent recounting the event of the captured British soldiers. There's a lot of attribution in the article used to flesh out the story, including quotes from ambassadors representing various countries, the Iranian prime minister, and Iranian army generals. The article is approached in a way that competently explains the different nuances of the type of story that it is.

The same story's treatment in the New York Times is comparable to that of the LA Times', but seems to come off as more immediate, with information pushed to the front of the article that the LA Times hesitates to delve into. There is also more focus on the work that went into preparing the sanctions, which te article reveals as being the result of heavy deliberations on Friday. There's also a lot more specifics about what exactly the resolution will do to Iran, including calling on other nations not to give grants or donations to the country except in the case of humanitarian projects. However, the article is not really divided into sections in the same way that the LA Times article is. In general, all the information seems to be more mixed up and strwen all over the place, but it flows well and all relates to the sanctions. There's no mention of the capture of British troops or really detailed information about the past sanctions, so the article flows easily with this narrower focus.

Between the two of them, the New York Times seems to have a lot more information up higher, and gives a lot more detail about the resolutions and their inevitable effects on the country. It is not sectioned up into chunks and it does not touch on the other aspects the way the LA Times story does, but it doesn't have to. It just does a fine job of elaborating on what has happened related to the sanctions on Iran.

March 19, 2007

Over 70 Left Dead in Russian Coal Mine Explosion

The New York Times has run an article today on a methane gas explosion in a Siberian coal mine this morning. At the time the article ran, 61 people had died as a result of the catastrophe, with 64 people alive but trapped and 88 rescued. Rescue workers continued to work into the evening to save those afflicted by the disaster, one of the deadliest in recent times. The death count from this one incident has nearly surpassed the combined deaths from all of Russia's 22 mine accidents last year.

The article is written as a breaking news piece, delviering the information in a succinct and fast way and not giving too much detail about what caused the methane gas explosion. These details will probably be expounded upon at a later time. The one instance of attribution in the article comes from the chairman of the Russian Union of Miners, who says what actions are necessary and places fault for the incident on the level of pay and wage, for whatever reason. There's no quotes from witnesses or those rescued. The lead summarizes the story while the following graphs expound upon it.

An more recent article on the same event published on Mosnews.com, a Russian news site, has put the death count at 78, and says that at least 40 people still remain underground morethan 10 hours after the blast, so the final number of deaths could rise. The article says that there were around 200 miners inside, with a total of 81 rescued, figures that also differ from the original article's. There is more attribution in the article, with quotes from ambulance workers, Russian governors, and officials at the rescue operation. The company who owns the mine is also expounded upon, with no comment given from them.

The differing figures in the two articles are confusing, and there's really no way of telling which article is more correct in this regard. I feel like the article published on Mosnews.com is the better of the two because it has more attribution and talks about the company who owns the mine, both of which I feel are crucial for the article. The section it has devoted to the history of mine accidents in Russia is less extensive than the New York Times article, but I don't feel like that facet of the story is as important as getting attribution from people involved and talking about the mine owners.

March 5, 2007

Leaders in Palestine Attempt to Craft Unity Government

An article in the New York Times today has reported that talks between Palestinian leaders Mahmoud Abbas of the Fatah faction and Ismail Haniya of the Hamas faction have failed to resolve differing opinions over a possible united government in the country. The two leaders met on Sunday, and expressed disagreement on issues such as posts within the government, and representation of factions considered terorristic by the United States. The Mecca Agreement was signed February 8th, which paved the way for a unity government, but the two officials have disagreed on many suggestions. Officials believe establishing such a unity government would bring the nation closer to meeting requirements for direct aid from the four negatiating partner countries, the United States, The European Union, The United Nations, and Russia.

This is a long, detailed article focusing on political matters in a foreign country, and how they tie in to the country's future. The past government of the country has recently been removed and it is now at a key crossroads where its future will be decided. It has a news value of something that affects lot of people and should be reported on, and its lead mostly deals with the need to figure out how to resolve the details of the government within a specific period of time. The primary event is the disagreements between the two, and so the history of the attempts at establishing a govenment needs to be expounded upon, and it is, and quotes from people among the two factions are given to establish why the unity government is needed and should be considered.

An Associated Press article about the issue ran in The Guardian today, and it discusses some of the key disagreements between the two sides again and puts more of a focus on the restoration of aid to Palestine than the previous article. Stances from the four groups who may restore aid regarding the state of Palestine are given, with a lot of the focus being on the European Union who believe it is too early to tell if they will resume aid. The Mecca Agreement is again mentioned, with the U.S. stance that it is not successful enough to meet demands.

Between the two articles, there are some key points that one addresses and the other does not, and I prefer the New York Times article between the two becausei t's longer and just seems to focus more on the issues leading up to a unity government. The Associated Press article's slant is more about the countries approving aid to Palestine, and that's important but I think the New York Times article addressed it enough and concentrated on other areas that exceed it in importance.

February 26, 2007

Cheney Visits Pakistan and Afghanistan to Consult With Presidents

A Reuters article published today has reported that Vice President Dick Cheney has made surprise visits to both Pakistan and Afghanistan today to consult with the presidents of both countries. Cheney urged both to step up eforts against the Taliban and al-Qaida groups, whose activity quiets down in the winter and are due for a resurgance in the spring. The United States plans to increase the amount of its troops.

The article reflects the news value of timeliness and import, because a large amount of people will be affected and it's happening soon. The article is largely of a speculative nature because the events haven't happened yet, but a surge of al-Qaida and Taliban attacks are anticipated in the spring judging by past trends. The lead mentions the visit and its purpose, but goes into further depth and at the end presents a history of the conflicts with the groups and the U.S. presence in the country. The meeting itself isn't really enough to sustain an entire news story by itself, so recounting the past events is important.

An article on the same event published today in The Australian approaches the story in a slightly different way, and doesn't mention the anticipated spring offensive from the Taliban group until the 3rd graph. An important detail that this article puts forward is that U.S. accusations of al-Qaida training camps in Pakistan, claims the article says the country dismissed as absurd. There's also no quote from the Pakistani president like there was in the first article, talking about what Cheney discussed with him. However, the article does make it clear that the U.S. considers the two countries to be allies in its war against terror.

I feel like the article in The Australian actually contains more information, between the two of them. It stresses how violent the previous year was for Pakistan, and seems to do an even better job of giving a history of the country's relations with the Taliban organization. There also seems to be more information specifically about U.S. relations with the country, which really is the focus of the article.

February 19, 2007

Train Attack Attempts to Disrupt Peace Talks

According to a Reuters news article, two bombs that exploded on a train bound from India to Pakistan have killed over 66 people. The explosion has been identified as an attempt to disrupt peace talks between the two nations. Two undetonated bombs were recovered from the train, indicating that the attack could have been much worse.

The article is an international story, and the journalist has approached the issue assuming that readers may have little familiarity with the situation and clarifies the past relationship between India and Pakistan. The lead is hard and details the events of the story, but then goes into giving the reactions of some of the important figures involved, who insist that the attack will not affect them. The article then begins a new section, which focuses on the drama that the moment contained and graphically describes the scenario and the danger. There are then quotes from families complaining about lack of security, and talks about how the attacks occurred almost 5 years from a set of different attacks.

A BBC News article covering the same story begins by emphasizing that the nations would not let the attacks disrupt their peace talks, rather than focusing on the carnage of the incident itself. It is a bit more optimistic in this way, although the graphic scenes are still described later on. The big important quote from the Pakistani president insisting that their resolve will be stiffened is still a focal point, but more quotes from witnesses are added to give the dramatic parts more weight.

Of the two articles, I prefer the BBC News' coverage of the event because of their emphasis on the larger repurcussions for the two countries early on in the article, showing that the acts of terrorism are not disrupting nations' search for peace overall. It's important to stress this aspect of the article in addition to the tragic part, and while they both do a good job at these tasks I think it works better for the major political effects to be upfront like they are on the BBC News story.

February 12, 2007

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.

February 5, 2007

Indonesian Floods Leave Many Dead and Homeless

An article to be published in The Independent today has reported that massive flooding has hit the Indonesian capital of Jakarta, causing hundreds of thousand of its citizens to evacuate the city and killing at least 29 people. Indonesia is prone to large monsoon rains annually, and so the fact that this situation was not anticipated and given a better shot at prevention is a concern for indonesians and many are questioning the government's efforts. The storm drains intended to curb the flooding were piled with rubbish, and forested hillsides south of the city intended to stop floods like this have been removed in order to build houses for the rich. It is a case of poor urban planning and natural disaster anticipation. Disease is now a large threat to the area's denizens, as well.

The article is one that emphasizes the news values of timeliness and impact. Not only is this unfolding right now, the impact it's having is incredible and hundreds of thousands of people are affected. The events and their causes are outlined in the article, and a special emphasis is placed on the refusal of the government to take responsibility for prevention and handling of the crisis. A quote from the governor of Jakarta is used to illustrate his unwillingness to take action, and quotes from citizens of the city are also used to elaborate on the government's inaction. An emphasis is also placed on the threat of disease, which could potentially be one of the effects of the floods. At the end of the article an economic expert is quoted as saying that the events will not affect inflation. All quotes are full and full attribution is used. The lead is handled over the course of several sentences, with the first sentence alone not being enough to get a full picture of the key events. The story is written in a basic inverted pyramid style.

An Associated Press article about the flooding that ran in the Star Tribune newspaper today chooses to emphasize many of the same points, with the only exception being that it lacks a section about the projected economic impact of the disaster. However, the focal point of the article outside the events themselves is the government's poor response to the disaster, with the same quotes from the governor of Jakarta and the citizens being used to illustrate this. There seems to be more of an emphasis on using numbers to try and illustrate the magnitude of the catastrophe, which helps, and the lead gives the important details quicker than it did in the article in The Independent. The attribution in the two articles is essentially the same.

I prefer the Associated Press' article because it gets to the point immediately, letting the reader know how many people are effected. You have to read deeper in The Independent's article in order to understand that. I like how both articles chose to emphasize the government's inaction and lack of preparedness, because that's an important part of the issue and for a government to be handling something like this so carelessly is quite newsworthy and needs to be one of the main points of an article.

January 30, 2007

Date Set for North Korea Nuclear Disarmament Talks

An Associated Press article printed in the Star Tribune today has reported that international talks on dismantling North Korea's nuclear weapons programs will continue on February 8th. Washington has been trying to get the country's capital city of Pyongyang to disarm after a nuclear test staged by the country in early October of last year. The previous talks, held in early December of last year, did not make any progress on the situation. The U.S. has imposed financial restrictions on the country due to alleged smuggling and counterfeiting, and in September of 2005 North Korea had agreed to end its nuclear program in exchange for security and aid from the U.S. So far the nation has done nothing to show that it agreed to this.

This is a very sensitive issue of international importance, and the article does an excellent job of covering it with the depth it requires. The article begins by focusing on the recent development in the issue, and then goes into the history of what has lead up to it. Attribution is absolutely essential to this article's strength, and it spends the middle to latter part of the article giving quotations from important figures and agencies who will be involved in the talks such as the Deputy Assistant Treasury Secretary for the United States about the financial restrictions aspect, and various Prime Ministers and Foreign Ministry spokespeople. These quotes give both speculation and state the intent of these officials, and give a general idea of where the situation may be headed.

An article on the same subject published by Reuters covers the story differently, with a much shorter format that requires less commitment to read. Rather than saying that China said the talks with resume Feb. 8th as the Star Tribune article did, the Reuters article says "The United States expects," which is an interesting discrepancy. Apparently at the time the Reuters article was written the U.S. was still waiting on an announcement from China, and the Reuters article has a focus on the U.S. Negotiator in the talks, with the last paragraph describing what the talks will be. The once instance of attribution is used to describe the negotiator preparing for the talks, and the article is much shorter. It's a standard attributed quote, following the format, whereas the other article frequently quoted sentence fragments and lone words.

More reporting clearly went into the Asoociated Press article printed in the Star Tribune, and the article's longer and does a better job of summarizing the situation for those who may not have followed it. The use of quotes and attribution from many of the different parties helps, and in my opinion the article covers the issue more fully.

January 22, 2007

Strikes Turn Violent in Guinea Capitol

Reuters reported Monday that strikes against Guinea's President Lansana Conte resulted in more than 20 deaths in the nation's capitol of Conakry . The demonstrations began two weeks ago, and the latest violence has left over 150 people wounded.

Since the article deals with events that have been ongoing, its lead focuses on highlighting the latest developments. The lead contains the most shocking new detail about the strikes, and also includes an explaination of what lead to the killings for people who may be unaware of what is going on.

An Associated Press article on the same story published two days ago by the International Herald Tribune treats the lead similarly. The most recent deaths at the time of publication are again the focal point, as they are the most notable consequence of the events. This reflects the negativity news value. The article goes on to say that "the strike began on January 10th as a result of Conte halting the trial of two men accused of stealing millions of euros from the state".

I feel the Reuters article is superior to the Associated Press article because it goes further in depth and outlines more issues that caused the strikes. It also identifies the two main labor groups involved, and gives a much better background of the events so far. The Associated Press article is too brief to give a full understanding of the circumstances, and would have benefitted from another paragraph talking about the key groups of protestors.