President Bush vetoed a bill that would have "expanded federal funding for stem cell research on donated embryos."
Two articles. One from the Associated Press and the other from Star Tribune. Both are about a rally held Tuesday at the State Capitol by a group who called themselves United Hmong Stand for Justice. Both tried to show the size of the crowd that gathered and both tried to give a reason why the rally was held.
Both articles were written as straight news stating simply what happened and why it happened. I attended the rally as well so reading what other people wrote about it is certainly interesting.
The AP article used strong verbs. For example, in the lead, "Hmong refugees flocked Tuesday to the state Capitol grounds in a show of support for a revered leader who is accused of conspiring to overthrow the communist government of Laos." Having attended the rally and witnessed men and women running to cross the street to join the crowd, I believe that the writer's use of the verb is excellent. I think it conveys the urgency of the people who attended. The Star Tribune article used verbs like, "chanted," and "gathered"-which aren't as strong as the AP's but nonetheless, I believe it conveyed what it needed to.
What both articles imply is that the rally was to support Vang Pao. If the writer's were to have dug a little deeper and, I believe, talked to more people, they would have found that not ever person at the rally was there to support Vang Pao. Some people who attended the rally, mostly younger people, came to show their support for the Hmong in Laos who they believe are being persecuted by the Lao Government. I believe there was more to the story that just a rally. But, both articles did a good job of getting to the meat of it.
Gun control laws have always been controversial and never ending. However, with the House passing a bill that will provide grant money for background checks on prospective gun buyers, "loop holes" will be fixed.
In looking at how the passing of the bill was covered by The New York Times and The Washington Post the Post does a better job. The Post's lead was attention grabbing; The Time and The Post both cite Virgina Tech as an example of gun control issues in their lead but The Post words it much better making the reader want to learn more about the bill; The Times hits the lead with too much info-citing 1996 as the last time Congress took on gun control.
The Washington Post also does a good job closing the story; the Post ending with thoughts from NRA members.
Television airwaves have been talking about it all week: a man cut off his wife's tongue over an argument about her smoking a cigarette while out for her birthday.
The Startribune and In-Forum News offer two very different styles of covering the story.
The Startribne goes more in depth to the story, giving the man and woman a real identity while In-Forum News turned the story into quick overview of the "juicy" facts.
The Startribune has a better lead-getting to the importance/unusualness of the story right away and then telling the story of the couple. In-Forum News' article has a fairly decent lead. It gets to the meat of the story but the writing doesn't grab a reader the same way the Startribune does.