Enquirer reverses protest story
Yesterday marked the four-year anniversary of the Iraq War and, appropriately, war critics gathered to protest at Fountain Square.
The Enquirer, as expected, was there to cover the event. At least that's what you'd expect from a major newspaper like the Enquirer. But some how, Quan Truong and Howard Wilkinson ended up writing a story about Iraq War supporters instead of simply covering the event that they should have been assigned to cover.
Interesting.
Truong and Wilkinson should be familiar with the industry-standard "inverted pyramid" style of writing. For those who don't know, the "inverted pyramid" is a style of writing based on the assumption that people are only going to read the first couple of paragraphs (if not only the first paragraph) of a news story. Therefore, editors and teachers make you cram all of the key information into the lead and the next couple of paragraphs.
So why does the beginning of a local war protest story look like this?
As you can see, the writers chose to skirt the actual event and dive right into parents who have sacrificed and want that sacrifice to mean something.
Might work for a companion feature (where you're supposed to buck the pyramid a little), but makes no sense as event coverage.
Eventually the writers did start talking about the actual protest, but long after most readers have flipped the page or clicked a new link.
Sloppy writing at best, clear bias at worst.
The Enquirer, as expected, was there to cover the event. At least that's what you'd expect from a major newspaper like the Enquirer. But some how, Quan Truong and Howard Wilkinson ended up writing a story about Iraq War supporters instead of simply covering the event that they should have been assigned to cover.
Interesting.
Truong and Wilkinson should be familiar with the industry-standard "inverted pyramid" style of writing. For those who don't know, the "inverted pyramid" is a style of writing based on the assumption that people are only going to read the first couple of paragraphs (if not only the first paragraph) of a news story. Therefore, editors and teachers make you cram all of the key information into the lead and the next couple of paragraphs.
So why does the beginning of a local war protest story look like this?
The fourth anniversary of the war in Iraq was marked Monday with protest and prayer, and thoughts for local families of soldiers killed.
John Prazynski of Hamilton is one. In May, it will have been two years since his 20-year-old son, Lance Cpl. Taylor Prazynski, died.
As painful as that loss was, he supports the war that took the young Marine he was proud to call his son.
"When somebody comes up to me and wants to give me all the reasons why we shouldn't be there and why we should get out now, the first question I ask them is if they are getting all their information from the newspapers and the TV," said Prazynski. "If they say yes, I tell them to go talk to somebody who has been there, in uniform. They'll tell you why they believe in the cause."
On April 9, Keith and Carolyn Maupin of Union Township will mark the third anniversary of the capture of their son, Sgt. Matt Maupin, near Baghdad airport. Maupin remains the only U.S. soldier listed by the Pentagon as captured.
As you can see, the writers chose to skirt the actual event and dive right into parents who have sacrificed and want that sacrifice to mean something.
Might work for a companion feature (where you're supposed to buck the pyramid a little), but makes no sense as event coverage.
Eventually the writers did start talking about the actual protest, but long after most readers have flipped the page or clicked a new link.
Sloppy writing at best, clear bias at worst.
Labels: Cincinnati, Downtown, Fountain Square, Iraq, media
Nice article and new due.
Posted by Anonymous | 12:17 AM
Andrew, this reminds me of the Enquirer's coverage of the day without an immigrant march.
It looked like a thousand people were there. Who got the focus of attention? The one stupid lady with a sign that said English only or something stupid like that.
Of course this is the same gang that was pumping propaganda with the Grandma in Iraq blog. Though it wasn't disclosed she was working for the Pentagon telling us how wonderful everything in Iraq is.
Then there's Maragaret Buchanan pumping 3CDC's propaganda too.
What a sorry excuse for a so called "paper of record". Who's paper and who's record? Not ours!
Posted by Anonymous | 12:29 PM