An Article About An Article

Today, the New York Times published an article about an essay written in the Joint Force Quarterly about ending the 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy in the military. Although writing an article about an article may seem strange, the author, Elisabeth Bumiller,manages to avoid just simply summarizing the original article and actually adds a lot of insight to the subject.

She gives a brief summary of the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy as well as the general stance of the article. Instead of just summarizing she uses a direct quote from the essay to give a gist of what it was about. I feel like choosing a quote instead of just summarizing the information, not only was more interesting, but allowed the readers to see what kind of language was being used and just how bluntly the subject was being discussed.

Bumiller then goes on to discuss how although the article does not represent any official military points of view and has no influence on policy, it does "signal a shift in the winds." Bumiller brings up the reactions of different military personal such as Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Admiral Mullen. Although neither Admiral Mullen nor Mr. Gates have indicated that they encourage the story in any way, Burmiller points out how this article is a step forward, drawing upon the reaction from the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network.

Bumiller is able to take an article about an article and give it a new and interesting spin.

Thanks But No Thanks Mrs. Mom

This article seems more like an opinion than something that should be featured in the Health section of the New York Times. The entire article is told from the first person and draws upon personal experiences. I've always found it a little taboo to criticize mothers. In my opinion, a mother knows what's best for their child, and if you are going to criticize you better have a good reason and a lot of information to back yourself up.

Although the author, Jane E. Brody, has sources for many of the claims she makes (such as "Randi Jacoby, a speech-language specialist in New York"). A lot of the "data" she draws upon comes from herself and her friends. This would have been okay if she was telling a cute story about a child, but by using what happens to herself and her friends and applying it to the general population, Brody loses credibility.

In my opinion, Brody seems like a preachy grandmother telling her daughter how to raise her kids. Although the advice from the grandmother is probably very good and genuine advice, it is unwanted and very situational.

Horrifying Topic, Great Article

Today's article, N.Va. Woman Aids Rescue Of Immigrants discusses a frightening topic: hostages taken by a violent Mexican smuggling cartel. Although the subject was horrible, the article was not. It deals with a frightening issue delicately, but doesn't skirt around the subject and gives plenty of information. It shows how the issue of the hostages was dealt with on a personal, local, and national level. If the author, Josh White, had instead chosen to focus on only one of these three aspects, the article would have felt incomplete. Sure, White could have focused on Berthothy's personal struggles on dealing with being put in this situation, and while that would have made for an invigorating read, it would not have explained many important aspects of the article. For example, the process that occurred after Berthothy placed the call. In addition, one of the key aspects of the article: that although "immigration officials realize that both the victims and the kidnappers have broken the law, they say they want to save lives first and sort out immigration status second" would not have been fully understood if this article had been written from a solely personal perspective. In conclusion, this article deftly discusses a horrifying topic and provides plenty of details and information without sounding like a police report.

Painful.

Today, instead of looking at articles from The New York Times and The Washington Post, I've decided to take a look at an article from my town's local newspaper, "The Mclean Connection." The Mclean Connection is your average local newpaper, covering a variety of topics from a new program for stay at home moms in the area, to why our city has not received the bulk of the promised stimulus package money yet. One article in particular that caught my eye was called "Nervous, Excited, Tense" and was written by Susan Belford.

With a title called "Nervous, Excited, Tense," I was anticipating an article that was either exciting or nerve-wracking. Instead, I got the most boring article ever. Not only was it boring, but it was poorly written as well. Now, as a lowly sophomore in college who has never written any articles for a newspaper, I usually feel ridiculous criticizing someone else's article, but in this case I feel no guilt whatsoever. By the second sentence "They were feeling tense, excited and nervous" I knew there would be nothing good coming out of this article.

Before we get to the second sentence, let me explain the first sentence: "five new teachers at Potomac Elementary faced their classes for the very first time on Aug. 31." The rest of the article doesn't really provide anything else. All that is discussed is how these new teachers are working to get through the year. The problems that are mentioned are all generalized, "staying organized", and completely obvious. Everyone has to deal with staying organized or managing his or her time. If this article had provided more specifics that are pertinent to being a new teacher at this moment in time, maybe it wouldn't have been such a struggle to reach the end of the article.

Now! Back to the second sentence. Really? They were feeling tense, excited and nervous. Not only is the sentence structure the most boring sentence structure known to man-kind, it "tells" instead of "shows." Now, I personally learned in second grade the importance of showing instead of telling and if I could figure it out then, it can't be that hard. But no! This article is filled with sentences like" "Steimer feels exhilarated about teaching every morning..." I mean, if you're going to give us a sentence like that the very least you could do is explain why.

Anyway, after reading an article like this, I'm not sure I want to read "The Mclean Connection" ever again.

A lot of Work for One Article

Today's article is a little different than the usual article I've seen in the New York Times and the post. Instead of an article about an event or a new policy this article was about a person. Specifically it was about Najibullah Zazi, a suspected terrorist who has been undergoing trials in New York this week. Obviously something as big as apprehending a suspected terrorist is going to play a prominent role in the news and media and for the last three days both the New York Times and the Washington Post have featured an article relating to Mr. Zazi's arrest on the front page. However, today is the first time an article has gone in to such depths about Mr. Zazi's past.

"From Smiling Coffee Vendor to Terror Suspect" demonstrates the immense amount of research that is involved in publishing a quality article. In fact, 4 staffers contributed to the story: Simon Akam, Alison Leigh Cowan,Michael Wilson and Karen Zraick (Only Mr. Wilson actually wrote the article). These four reporters clearly did their research. They talked to Mr. Zazi's family, friends, as well as acquaintances. They learned about Mr. Zazi's history, his religious beliefs, his past jobs, his travels, and even when people started noticing a change in him. Although there are still many unanswered questions (such as why Mr. Zazi was building bombs, and when the federal authorities started tracking Mr. Zazi) this article is the first article to provide the public with any sort of background information on who Mr. Zazi actually is.

What impresses me the most is the quick turnaround time in which this article was published. Mr. Zazi was only accused last Thursday. That means the reporters only had 3 days to find out as much information as they could on Mr. Zazi. I'm not sure whether I would have even known where to start. The reporters probably had to talk to countless useless people before they found anyone who could give them any worthwhile information. In addition they needed to string together all the pieces of information they discovered in a cohesive article to be published.

In conclusion, I'm very impressed with the amount of time and effort involved in this article and hope that more information regarding Mr. Zazi will be released in the next few days.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/26/nyregion/26profile.html?pagewanted=3&ref=todayspaper

Loved It!

Today's article "South African Children Push For Better Schools" by Celia Dugger was a great read. In the first two sentences Dugger paints a picture that captures the reader's interest. The rest of the article uses just a few key words to give the reader enough information to imagine the events as if they were there while they were occurring. The events of the article all take place in South Africa, a country so far away to most of the readers of The New York Times that Dugger's ability to leave the readers feeling connected to the events is truly a feat.

Dugger not only tells us what is occurring at the moment (children protesting in South Africa), but she also gives us just enough background information for the reader to contextualize what is occurring without boring us with a history lesson. She briefly mentions what happened in the last 15 years since white supremacy rule ended in South Africa. Touching upon the failure of the African National Congress to fix the problems with education and the last time schoolchildren were involved in a march.

Throughout the article Dugger includes details that help the readers visualize the events in South Africa. Such as describing Mr. Achmat's "white straw hat bobbing in a sea of plaids and ginghams." In addition to giving colorful detail Dugger also gives background information on a couple of the marchers. This short and simple background information helps show how relatable the marchers are and gives the reader a stronger sense of connection with what is occurring.

With just a few colorful words, a little bit of history, and a a few short background sentences Dugger has created a beautiful and relatable article. It's no wonder it was featured on the front page of the New York Times!

A Refreshing Perspective

Recently it feels like everything you read in the news just shows the world is going to hell in a hand-basket. The Taliban is growing more intelligent, the UN talks haven't made significant progress, healthcare reform debates are using scare tactics and flashy media stunts instead of intelligent debate, we still don't have a military strategy in Afganistan, and that's just the beginning! So when I finally stumbled upon David Brown's article "AIDS Vaccine Experiment Yields Unanticipated Results" it felt as though it was the only positive thing going on in the world right now.

According to the article an experiment in Thailand called the "Thai trial" yielded the first positive results for an AIDS vaccine. Don't jump for joy just yet though- not only has most of the data from the study not been released yet, but "it is unlikely that any country would consider it effective enough to be used as a public health measure against HIV."

Still, even with this wet blanket, Brown manages to show the positives of this research, without using any fluffy terminology or giving the readers false hope. He mentions that the research has shown that a vaccine is possible. In addition, he shows the reader that by using the information found from this study, scientist are able to gather a great deal of information about what is going on in the immune system when a person has some protection from HIV. However, Brown then deftly presents the negative aspects of the Thai trial showing that researchers are still skeptical about drawing conclusions from the study when the results have not yet been released.

All in all, I think Brown does a good job of not only showing the significance of this study, but also giving the reader perspective on what this truly means for the future of AIDS. While this vaccine may not be the answer, at least we know that it wasn't a total waste of time and resources and that there is some hope to finding a cure in the future.

Article link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/24/AR2009092400183.html?hpid=topnews

Good Information, Bad Delivery

Yesterday the law banning flavored cigarettes officially went into effect. The law was passed in the hopes that by banning flavored cigarettes, a product used mainly by teenagers, fewer teens would become addicted to smoking. In Gardiner Harris's article "Flavors Banned From Cigarettes to Deter Youths" (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/23/health/policy/23fda.html?ref=todayspaper) Harris explains why the FDA decided a ban on flavored cigarettes is necessary and where the FDA got the power to regulate tobacco products. In addition, he covers details missing from the legislation and the confusion that has arisen as a result. On top of that, he then delves into the effect of the ban on stores that sell cigarettes. All this, in an article that can't be more than 1,000 words.

Of course one of the difficulties that comes with reporting is fitting all the information into the small square of column space alloted for you in tomorrows paper. I imagine most (good) reporters do pages and pages of research before they write what ends up being a very short article, so deciding what information stays and what has to go is a very onerous task. However, while Harris has conducted plenty of research and gathered a plethora of information, his article overloads the reader with too many different angles on the same issue. As a result parts of his article seem choppy and even a little random. For example, in the last two paragraphs Harris briefly mentions Brian Mullholland, the general manager of Georgetown Tobacco, and how he has been educating consumers of flavored cigarettes on what to switch to. The rest of the article has no mention of the struggle of either the consumer or managers of stores that sell tobacco and instead focuses on the confusion between the agency and tobacco companies regarding what qualifies as a cigarette.

Overall, while this article gives the reader a lot of relevant information concerning the ban on flavored cigarettes, it seems choppy and often randomly pieced together.