My News Lede:
While members of U.S. National Security Council debated on intervening, Libyan anti-government insurgents successfully warded off attacks by Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi’s troops on the city of Brega on Wednesday, but the Colonel’s power remains unshaken.
Comparisons:
The hard news story “U.S. defense secretary Robert Gates slams ‘loose talk’ about ‘no-fly zones’”(http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/mar/03/robert-gates-dismisses-no-fly-zone) from the Guardian shows the conflicting opinions of David Cameron, the prime minister of the United Kingdom, and the U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates regarding intervening Libya. Since the Guardian is a UK publication, the journalist seems to view the situation through the lens of the British. The article also reveals some tension between Downing Street and the White House, perhaps due to the fact that Gates criticizing Cameron’s idea of imposing a no-fly zone over Libya. The journalist incorporates direct quotes from both Gates and Cameron, thereby creating a sort of dialogue between to the two figures regarding their approaches to the situation. The journalist captures the U.S. and UK’s differing position—one treads carefully, weighing all options, while the other calls for immediate action to relieve the Libyan people.
In the Politico.com opinion piece “U.S. held hostage by Qadhafi,” (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0311/50617.html) the journalist argues that the U.S. doesn’t quite know how to counteract Col. Muammar Qadhafi. The journalist credits the U.S. for following the “how-to-pressure-a-dictator manual pretty faithfully.” The piece also seems more analytical, for the journalist spells out potential reasons why Qadhafi has been able to remain in power despite pressure from the U.S.—because “the United States has not been a central player in the transformative wave of political change sweeping the Arab world.” For an opinion piece, it seems okay for the journalist to make claims without backing them up with direct quotations, for the claims are made based on a range of reporting from secondary sources. The journalist also states potential steps the U.S. can take: either to watch and wait for the Libyans to take Qadhafi down or to mobilize airpower. The journalist seems to think that U.S. will be better off if we don’t act; however, the article ends with the journalist depressingly stating that the U.S. will have to get involved sooner or later. This piece differs from the Guardian article in that the writers’ voice and analysis of the whole picture is clearer. The opinion piece also helps contribute to the larger discussion of what actions foreign countries should take. For me, the hard news story is informative, whereas this opinion piece is more insightful and visionary on what the news entails.
The New York Times article “Rebels in Libya Repel Qaddafi Forces in a Key Oil City” serves more as a background story rather than a hard news story reporting on the battle in Brega, Libya on Wednesday. The article is more narrative and the journalist uses less of a diplomatic reporting voice. The paragraphs are also longer and more descriptive. The journalist incorporates emotional quotes, such as “Victory or death!” from the men at the scene. There is also a direct quote from a wounded soldier as well as the emergencies director for the Human Rights Watch. The story is mainly told from the perspective of the victims and those who might help them. The overall article seemed more like “story-telling” than “hard reporting,” giving the article a more humanistic view rather than a diplomatic one.
(http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/03/world/africa/03libya.html?ref=todayspaper)
While members of U.S. National Security Council debated on intervening, Libyan anti-government insurgents successfully warded off attacks by Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi’s troops on the city of Brega on Wednesday, but the Colonel’s power remains unshaken.
ReplyDeleteYou're trying to squeeze too much into the lede. That last clause just dangles off. It's very hard, but you have to choose what is essential. Also, not sure it's accurate that Quaddafi's power remains unshakable. That's the kind of statement you have to be very careful with - I think I know what you're trying to say, but in fact your vastly overstating the fact, which is the same as being inaccurate.
Your analysis of the stories is very good. You have some good insights about op ed pieces and are seeing the difference between more feature-y writing and hard news. well done