The Times 4/6-4/9

Monday:
Today there were a lot of international-based articles on the front page. They were made more newsworthy by the fact that they involved President Obama. The Times did something interesting with two of these articles: they ran two stories about the North Korean missile launch, and put them right next to each other. I think this worked well, as both stories looked at the news from a different angle (one focusing on the failure of the missile test, the other examining how it affects the USA.) This strategy makes it easy to look at the story more closely and to get a better idea of what the repercussions of this test could be.
It is interesting that there are also two stories about Pakistan. There is one on the front page about President Obama’s attempts to partner up with Pakistan to get rid of terrorists, while the other one discusses recent suicide attacks in Pakistan. This is sort of ironic, because in the first story the Pakistani people said that they didn’t want to partner with the US because the Taliban wasn’t a threat. Then in the second article we read how much of a threat the Taliban really is. So it is interesting to see that contrast.
The article about the candy maker whose food shop burned down starts out almost as if it is going to be a profile. I think the soft lead worked for this news story because it’s one of those next-day stories telling about what effect something had on someone. This didn’t just happen, so the hard news lead declaring that someone in Washington had a candy shop that burned down just wouldn’t fit.

Tuesday:
An article on the front page does a good job of discussing a budget without making it the focus of the story. It puts the budget in context and explains how the changes in the budget reveal a change in the way the military itself is changing. This is a good way to make something that would not be interesting (a change in budget) more interesting to the general public.
The story about the ongoing investigations into the conduct of people associated with the C.I.A. was interesting because it talked about a group of people I don’t usually associate with them: healthcare workers. I think it was good to focus on something new when doing this story, because we have already heard about many different aspects of what is going on.
This paper did something similar to yesterday’s coverage of the missile tests and Pakistan: it ran two stories about President Obama’s trip to Turkey. There was one that was a normal news story, and then one below it talking about peoples’ reactions to his visit.
The article on the front page about Russia is made more interesting because it is talking about something that we might be thinking about here in the US: auto bailouts. It is interesting to see what is happening with the economy in other countries, especially when it can be compared so directly to what is happening here. Since this article referenced what is going on in the United States in regards to auto bailouts, it makes it that much easier to compare the two.

Wednesday:
When looking at the leads for the articles on the front page, I think most of them are solid and clear. Most of them are hard news leads, which fit the stories, and the one soft lead is appropriate for the story about the couple who lost their camera while on their honeymoon. I didn’t really like the lead to one story, but I think the story in general was sort of confusing. This was the story discussing the investment bank Morgan Keegan. I think there was a very confusing start to this story, one that doesn’t give enough information to be effective. it seems like a very unfocused start to the story.
The story about the protests in Moldova takes an interesting route in pointing out the fact that the organizers of the protests used Twitter, text messages, and Facebook to call together a large crowd of people. I think this detail makes the story more relevant because these technologies are things that people in our society use all the time. We knew they were influential, and now we know that they can be used to start riots.
The two stories about gay rights on the front page show a contrast between rights here in the US and those in Iraq. They show how Vermont approved a bill to allow gay marriage while gay people in Iraq can be discriminated against and killed.
The story about the car dealership in Miami was interesting because it talks about something that we are worried about all over the country. This article focused in on one car dealership in a way that makes it easy to compare it to other dealerships all over the country. That connection to other places makes it more relevant and therefore more likely to be read.

Thursday:
A story that caught my attention right away was the one about the human fat cell that some studies suggest may burn calories. I noticed it because it is something I had just discussed in one of my classes. It is interesting how researchers take such a big step in declaring a certain type of fat is good for you, after years of results from studies suggesting that fat is something you want to avoid. It will be interesting to watch and see if anything results from this study, and if fat pills come out on the market.
The story about recession anxiety does a great job of showing how the recession has affected the lives of everyday people, even those who have not lost a lot financially. This makes the story relevant to anyone who is worried about the economy, instead of just focusing on those who have lost big things like homes or jobs.
The story about pirates from Somalia is made very relevant when we find out where the ship’s captain and first mate are from: they both are from New England (the captain is from Vermont, the first mate from Massachusetts). This will make it more important to follow this story as it goes along to see what will happen to these men.
There is a follow-up on the story about the Moldovan riot. It is interesting because the lead still sounds similar to a hard news lead instead of the soft lead you would expect. I think that the lead works in this case though, as it presents the dramatic scene of what happened and then explains how people are reacting to it. I think this makes the reactions more powerful because it puts them in the context of what they are actually reacting to.