News articles - Weeks 8, 9, 10

Week 8:

You can find this crime story at:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/12/02/cold.case.arrest/index.html

This is an interesting crime story. What I find fascinating about it is that it very much sticks to news story basics - it has a hard lede, immediately followed by a nut graph, and hard story structure. However, it is a well done crime story as well...in part because it makes you empathize so much with the victim and her family.

The lede stays simple, for such a complicated story:

"A call to the Secret Witness tip line helped police break CNN's first featured cold case: the slaying of college student Brianna Denison, investigators say. "

It does a good job of letting us know where all this information is from (with "investigators say").

Also, the nut graph stays to a similar stirctly news format:

"At a news conference Wednesday, relief was visible on the faces of the cops who worked the case and came, as one said, to view Denison as "everyone's daughter." For her family, the relief competed with tears."

Again, what I appreciate about this article, is that it really hones in on the "people" aspect of the story by focusing on the reactions of her family. Thus, it is informative yet well-crafted.

It ends with an unusual kicker, one that involves the reader:

"Police are urging anyone with more information to call the Reno Police Hot Line at 775-745-3521"

Overall, I think that if I were to write crime stories, I really would like to write ones like these....that highlight the human aspect of the story.

Week 9:

This story can be found at:

http://health.usnews.com/articles/health/healthday/2008/12/01/few-young-adults-seek-treatment-for--psych.html

If the story for Week 8 about crime does a really good job of developing the "so what" of the news topic, this Week 9 story, on mental illness in youth, does the opposite. I chose this is part because, in my opinion, it is a BAD news story. The lede is bland, the nut graph is redundant to the headline, and I guess overall, while this story would be better written as a feature anyway, it doesn't do justice to the topic, which is very important, pertinent one.

Here's the lede:

"Psychiatric disorders are common among young adults in the United States, but few seek treatment, a new report shows."

My first response as a reader wasn't "WOW that's an important, sad, fact!" it was more like, "This could be written so much better as an anecdotal lede!" And that's how I feel.

The nut graph is more of the same:

"The study found that 45.8 percent of the 2,188 college students and 47.7 percent of the young adults not in college met the criteria for at least one psychiatric disorder, but only 25 percent of those with disorders sought treatment over a one-year period."

This topic would be MUCH BETTER serviced by "showing" not "telling" in this particular example! So, if I appreciate the above article because it highlights the "so what" or the person perspective of the story, this one does the opposite - it just makes a story that should draw people in, and should be interesting, really, really dry with all the statistics and numbers.

Finally, the thing ends with a quote kicker, when once again I really wish it was anecdotal:

"The vast majority of disorders in this population can be effectively treated with evidence-based psychosocial and pharmacological approaches," they wrote. "Early treatment could reduce the persistence of these disorders and their associated functional impairment, loss of productivity and increased health-care costs. As these young people represent our nation's future, urgent action is needed to increase detection and treatment of psychiatric disorders among college students and their non-college-attending peers."


Week 10:

This story can be found at:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/2008-12-02-obama-poll_N.htm

I chose this story because I have been reading a lot of political writing this quarter, especially writing that is about the election...I have begun to notice that the style of political writing seems to me to be "punchier?" than other kinds of journalism? It just seems really energetic, really active, and really much more fast-paced than other kinds of writing. This is exemplified by the lede:

"President-elect Barack Obama is riding a wave of good feeling toward him and his key Cabinet appointments, a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll finds — positive attitudes that may give him some breathing room for tough decisions ahead."

There is a greater use of jargon and colloquialisms...."riding a wave" and "breathing room" as examples. I think too, that this must be the case beccause the risk of writing about politics, is that, well, it might end up reading like a Civics textbook.

Here is the nut graph:

"Soaring ratings for the way he has handled the presidential transition so far — more than three of four Americans express approval — contrast with a downbeat national mood over the economy."

Again, verbs like "soaring" hit home this same idea....that the writing has to use a lot of energetic language to bolster the potentially dry material. When I think of other writers who write about politics, like Thomas Friedman, the same quality is true about their writing as well.

The kicker is pretty much a fizzle-out kicker, but that makes sense because this is a short story with not all that much information to it:

"There's little concern Obama is relying too much on veterans of President Clinton's administration. By nearly 4-1, those polled say the picks will make the new team more effective."

As my last post for the quarter, I think I would like to reflect on the fact that I am beginning to hone-in on the very discreet differences in different sub-types of journalism....political blogging and writing being very different stylistically from other types of news writing.

News Article - Week 7

It was very difficult to find a "newsy" news article covering the election last night!

This is as close as I got:
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jNQ4X493HISig1UmhO8Ms8MqE29AD9491KK01

This article is about the expectations the United States and the world has for Obama. It has a slightly awkward lede, that is two sentences: "Over and over, Barack Obama told voters if they stuck with him 'we will change this country and change the world.' They did, and now their expectations for him to deliver are firmly planted on his shoulders. "

It has a nice image to convey the idea: "firmly planted on his shoulders" is the first thing that sticks in my head after reading the passage. In that sense, I think it is good - it really conveys the weight of Obama's task. I think that perhaps I don't like it because it is split in two sentences, and anything that starts with "over and over" implies redundancy...and makes me not want to read it!

The nut graph is: "Impatient for a new American era and overcome by a black man's historic ascension to the White House, they took his achievement for their own — weeping, dancing in the streets, blaring happy horns into Wednesday morning.

But campaign rhetoric soon collides with the gritty duties of governing, and hard realities stand in Obama's way."

Maybe I am biased in analyzing this article, and THAT's why I don't like it. It just seems like a downer.

Well, the nut graph emphasizes the signifigance of Obama's responsibilities - again, it starts with a high, "weeping, dancing in the streets, blaring happy horns" all the way down to "hard realities." It's effective, and I guess the point of newswriting isn't to make us happy people.

The kicker is the one part of this article that I really, really, liked:

"I came down here to make a prayer ... that we'll be able to change the nation and the world," said Hollis Gentry. "

I think this is a gem of a quote - its perfect for reflecting the point of the article, and what voters are thinking.

I need to keep looking for a more "newsy" news story about this topic...will let you know!

News Article - Week 6

See this article at:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/28/us/politics/28campaign.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

This article is just about as "newsy" as you could get - which makes me wonder if it is dileberatly sticking to the rules as the election approaches. While I scoured this article, I could find nothing biased about it - it comes as close to "unbaised" as I believe you can get.

The lede is: "Senators John McCain and Barack Obama began to make their final arguments for the presidency on Monday in dueling speeches across the battleground state of Ohio." I think this is pretty simple - it addresses the 5 W's and sets up the article well. The nut graph is found in the next paragraph:

"With just a week remaining in the presidential campaign, the Democratic and Republican rivals are zeroing in on the economy, taxes and jobs as they campaign in a handful of swing states. On Monday alone, the campaigns planned to also be in North Carolina, Virginia, Pennsylvania and Florida."

This highlights the signifigance of the topic at hand (last attempts by McCain and Obama to get votes!). It's a pretty clear, to-the-point nut graph, I think.

What is interesting about this article is that instead of using sources (like the respective campaigns!) it uses sources like experts from Standord and other professors. Perhaps this is another attempt to stay un-baised...or at least to seem so.

The kicker is a quote-kicker, and the article ends:

"If big government spenders control the House and the Senate and, heaven forbid, the White House, they will have a monopoly of power in Washington,” Ms. Palin said, “and the Obama-Pelosi-Reid agenda — it would put America on a path that erodes the strong work ethic that made America great.”

Crime Story Press Release - Bank Robbery

http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/miw/press/MHarris04112008.html

Week 5 Article Review

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/20/us/politics/20campaign.html?ref=politics

This article is about the news that Colin Powell has come out in support of Barack Obama in the U.S. Presidential debate.

The article comes after Powell was featured on "Meet the Press." I had a interesting time wrapping my head around this one - in a way, I feel that it walks a very find line between biased and not due to the organization of the information and the matieral included in the article.

It begins with pretty straight up news format coverage. The lede is even bland to some extent:

"Former Secretary of State Colin L. Powell endorsed Senator Barack Obama for president on Sunday morning, calling him a “transformational figure” who has reached out to all Americans with an inclusive campaign and displayed “a steadiness, an intellectual curiosity” and “a depth of knowledge” in his approach to the nation’s problems. "

"It goes on to expound on this. The nut graph comes shortly after the lede, and is probably the following:
The endorsement, on the NBC public-affairs program “Meet the Press,” was a major blow to Senator John McCain, who has been a good friend of Mr. Powell’s for decades. Mr. Powell, a Republican, has advised Mr. McCain in the past on foreign policy. "

This is probably why this article gets under my skin - maybe its less about bias and more about just reporting in a certain way. I guess the lede, the nut graph both seem..."gossipy"?...for lack of a better term. It focuses on why this is scandalous, as opposed to what effect this news might have. It's central arguement is why Colin Powell criticized McCain, NOT why he supports Obama.

Similarly, the organization is not "ABAB" in that it simply doesn't give any other side to the issue. What is intruging is that the organization of the information is juxtaposed in such a way as to suggest that Colin Powell's decision was the right one - meaning, there will be a quote from him saying why he supports Obama, and then his will be followed up by a McCain jab....again and again. It's layer like this throughout the article - and to me they seem like they should be reported as two seperate issues....maybe that's wrong though.

The kicker is a quote kicker. It's clear and to-the-point and I think it does a nice job of finishing things off nicely.

Article Review

http://money.cnn.com/2008/10/12/news/economy/gas_prices/index.htm?postversion=2008101215

This article is in pretty standard hard news format and content.

It begins with a fact, which illustrates the topic at hand: falling gas prices. It then goes on to outline the issue, which, while not a controversial one, still layers quotes from multiple sources and factual databases.

The nutgraph, which highlightes the connection between the declining economy and commodity prices, comes in the third brief paragraph.

"The decline comes as hurricane season winds down and oil prices drop because demand is likely to weaken as the economy slows."

I feel that this effectively ties the issue to the larger point.

This article is interesting because there is no room for alternate viewpoint as I see it. I would say its "ABAB" in format, but there is one single fact that this article is reporting on: gas prices are falling. There is numberical evidence to this point. So, in that light, the article is a good example of how to write a piece when there really isn't much of an opposing viewpoint.

I would say that this is somewhere between a fizzleout kicker and a fact-based kicker. The article ends with "The survey is conducted for AAA by Oil Price Information Service from credit card swipes at more than 85,000 service stations nationwide" and this highlights the signifigance of the evidence contained in the piece. However, the detail is probably erroneous to the overall message of the article.

News Analysis

This article can be found here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/07/science/earth/07mammal.html?_r=1&ref=world&oref=slogin


This hard news story discusses the trend of an increasing number of endangered species worldwide. It begins with the lede: “An “extinction crisis” is under way, with one in four mammals in danger of disappearing because of habitat loss, hunting and climate change, a leading global conservation body warned Monday” which some might consider a quote lede.
The nut graph comes very quickly after the lede, and emphasizes why this trend is important: “Within our lifetime, hundreds of species could be lost as a result of our own actions,” said Julia Marton-Lefèvre, the director general of the International Union for Conservation of Nature, or I.U.C.N., a network of campaign groups, governments, scientists and other experts.” This is obviously a "killer quote" to follow up the lede. The article does a nice job of layering sources: there are facts, statistics, but also several quotes from “experts” in different fields.

While this article very definitely takes the form of an inverted triangle, it does not have an “ABAB” format for differing viewpoints. It is interesting that this article is not about human individuals, and so I think that this is perhaps because it is a less controversial subject that this format suits.

Finally, the article ends on a “fizzle out” note: “The I.U.C.N. said increases in the population of the elephants in southern and eastern Africa were big enough to offset any decreases taking place elsewhere.” This is a diversion from the original “so what” of the article and so seems as though the writer has simply run out of material to cover.

What I like about this article is that it organizes material very well: it sends a clear message (animal endangerment is a serious threat) while still being very objective.