The Middle East has been a focal point in American news for some time now. I feel like I am constantly hearing or reading about the Middle East, and this is rightfully so. That area of the world is in constant tumult, and America is smack-dab in the middle of it. However, I think most of us can get sick of hearing about all the terrible events that occur there. In general, people like to be happy (I can't think of anyone who doesn't enjoy being in that state), so news of the Middle East doesn't really help people continue their existence in happy little bubbles. This latest article I read was a very straightforward piece about a protest that occurred in the Middle East. While the reason for the protest is saddening, there were certain circumstances surrounding it that actually rang with a little hope.
In Baghdad, a group of Christians and others gathered to protest a decision of the Iraqi Parliament. It had decided to remove a provision that set aside a certain number of seats in Parliament for Christians and two other minorities. It's sad that a government could be so against diversity. However, the article showed that Iraqi Muslims joined with the Christians to protest the removal of the provision. Iraq is desperately in need of unity among its people, and this protest is a positive example of the steps some are taking to form some sort of union.
In my opinion, there weren't many ways the writers could have gone wrong with this story. Like I said before, it was very straightforward. I thought they did a good job of showing the position of the minorities who were being left out. They also talked to the speaker of Parliament to get Parliament's side of the story. I thought it was really funny that the speaker could somehow claim that the removal was "an unintentional mistake." Yeah, I am so sure. How do you accidentally remove an article that encourages diversity within government? that prevents a monopoly by one group of people? Oh yeah, that's right: you don't. The choice was very intentional, but it was good reporting to represent the voice of Parliament within the article anyway.
Also, I felt the article was set up really well. The writers started with the most newsworthy details first, the details that everyday readers would relate to and care about. They then moved onto the more intricate details of everything that happened in order to add some more meat to the story.
So, this was what I was thinking until I reached the point in the article when it says "also on Monday." I'm sorry, but was it really necessary to add in all this other news at the end of an article? I know that everything concerned Baghdad, but that doesn't mean these other tidbits should be randomly shoved at the end of this otherwise focused story. I'm not sure if this is some accepted practice in reporting that I didn't know about, but I found it incredibly distracting. The story was really interesting, but the whole end section made me seriously question what was going on. The headline did not cover the random news at the end. I think all of those mini-stories could have been placed into a separate article titled "Random News From Iraq." Or maybe those mini-stories could have been further explored in order to create full stories so that there was no need for them to tag along at the end of a completely separate story. I just found it all very strange, and it definitely hurt my opinion of the article.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/07/world/middleeast/07iraq.html?pagewanted=print
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Okay, I can see the on Monday paragraph, since that's still in Baghdad, and has to do with what the city council decided. A stretch, but acceptable. I have no idea what northern Iraq or Turkey have to do with anything. I completely agree that it hurts one's opinion of the article.
I like that they gave a real example of how Christians are still in peril and didn't just state that without backing it up.
I agree that it's a really straightforward article. It was great, all except for that ending. I have no idea where that came from!
Unfortunately, it is common practice to tie disparate briefs to the end of an otherwise focused article. I agree that it's distracting. The New York Times already has an international briefs section. So, why not include the information at the bottom of this story in that section?
Now, it's interesting that you point out the suspicious quote included from Sheik Khalid al-Attiya. Although seemingly dubious, do we have an obligation to publish all sides of the issue? It's the same problem we run into with global warming stories. The vast majority of scientists appear to agree that global warming is "man made" and very real. However, most articles on the subject sill present the issue as if it's an equally weighted debate. Is that fair? I obviously don't have the answer. If you leave one side out, you get accused of advocacy.
Post a Comment