Northern Alliance & Afghanistan's New Government
By Melissa Maguire

I am following the coverage of the Northern Alliance and Afghanistan's new government.

November 13, 2001

AP and CNN.com

The AP article is written with a flair that is uncharacteristic for the AP. Phrases such as "American jets prowled the skies" spiced up the paragraphs earlier in the story. As the story progressed the writing got more serious. There was a very abrupt transition from the image projection writing in the beginning to the information based writing in the second half of the article. As for the placement of the article, I actually saw this article in a few places due to the nature of the AP but I read it on Salon.com. I found it in the column of AP articles on the news page.

The CNN article is written in a broadcast style. The paragraphs are shorter, and incorporated a lot of quotes, and the entire article is of a shorter length. As for the extras that CNN.com offers, there is a box for related stories, video, and pictures. I also like the way that CNN offers basic information on the entire situation. Maps and graphs are just the tip of the iceberg when you are looking for more visual ways of getting your information.

November 14, 2001

MSNBC.com and Christian Science Monitor MSNBC.com had a box for "Latest Developments" that I though was helpful. I enjoy the ability to get the background information but I also liked that if I did not want it I did not have to read it. In print you get the background whether you want it or not because it is woven into the article. The article was broken down into various sections that broke up the monotony of the lines of words. The writing was not as formal as most print publications. There was even a point that I laughed while reading the article. Another thing that I liked about the MSNBC coverage is the reoccurring column, "World Press Roundup." This column sums up the feelings and coverage of the major newspapers of the international community on a certain topic. Today's topic was the fall of Kabul. I love this idea. It could be a cousin of the weblog. This idea could only be executed online, because by the time that it got printed it would not be interesting anymore. It really gives the reader a global perspective on the issue and reminds Americans that there are other ways to look at the situation in Afghanistan.

The article from the Christian Science Monitor was very informative. It provided a lot of detail, but managed not rehash what I already knew. I think that that can be attributed to the quality of the writing. The reporter was able to give the reader an update on what the latest was in Afghanistan as well the history of the Pashtun segment of the Afghan population without a rough transition.

November 15, 2001

The New York Times and CNN.com

The Times article had a nice build up. It was not too wordy and really conveys the mood of Northern Afghanistan. Online this article would have been way too long but there is the luxury in print to go a little longer and produce an article that is more than just a news update but almost a feature. The CNN article is half the length of this one and both give basically the same information

The CNN article gives a basic update of many facets of the situation in Afghanistan. It is broken down into three different sections. I think that it would have been three different articles in print. I like how they are linked under an umbrella lead on CNN.com. Each section is very fact based with little analysis.

November 16, 2001

BBC News and The Washington Post

I think that the BBC.com has a lot of nice features that are standard on the screen for every story. The right hand column always lists links to background information, video and audio clips, chats, and fact files. The fact files are a great resource. I like any site that will compile fact sheets and organized background information for me in only a few clicks. This article is longer then most online news pieces and the long scroll makes it seem even longer. Even thought the article is longer than most articles it is broken down into smaller sections and this helps keep the readers attention. Another notable point is that there are not many ads to distract the reader. I think that this could be due to the fact that the government funds the BBC, not really looking for a huge profit.

The Washington Post article opens with a personal profile of one of the main "characters" in this article. This tactic drew me right in. The writing is stylized and almost cliched but it does keep me interested. It is a nice change from the usual bombardment of facts and figures when it comes to coverage of Afghanistan. This is a borderline feature and yet it is still on the front page. I do not think that such an article would be found on the homepage of an online news site.

November 17, 2001

CNN.com and the Daily News

This CNN.com interview is a transcript of an interview. This is something that you hardly ever see in print. It is interesting but I am not sure that it is effective. In broadcasting the interview is a substantial portion of coverage and it should be edited well but used liberally. Unlike in broadcast, in print and online I think that the interview is one tool of many. Good quotes and research should be incorporated into good writing. Although I question how informative and effective a transcribed interview is, I am sure that if belongs anywhere it is online.

The Daily News article is just the bare facts. It was cowritten with the News Wire Service, which I feel creates an article that is lacking any sort of solid style. The writing is not as sophisticated as some other print outlets but that could be catering to its audience, mush like many online sites. As for the content, it is straight to the point and up to date.

November 18, 2001

CNN.com and The New York Times

This CNN.com article is similar to the transcribed article that I wrote about yesterday but this one is more effective. This one seems to be a script from a package by one of my favorite corespondents, Christiane Amanpour. The writing is colorful, engaging and conversational without trivializing the information. The drawback to the script is that there are a few instances where I think that she was writing to the pictures in VO- pictures that I am not seeing so it does not completely make sense.

The New York Times article is the first that addresses the exact topic that I sought to cover. It talks about the Northern Alliance and the progress toward a new government for Afghanistan. It is very long and contains a lot of detail. I think that it presents the side of the Northern Alliance as well as the US and the UN's sides very equally. If this article was posted online, it would definatly have been broken down into several parts. I think that that would have made it easier to hold my attention through the entire thing. There is one thing that I generally find annoying in print. I do not like having to flip to the second half of articles that start in the front section. Online it is much easier to click to the full text.

November 19, 2001

MSNBC.com and The Daily News

I like the way that MSNBC starts with a pull quote style intro paragraph in big print, but I do not like the way that they have an ad between the intro and the rest of the story. It is very distracting ad ruins the flow of the opening of the story. It is helpful that they have a click button to the complete story but it would be better if they could avoid the whole problem. Despite that annoying feature MSNBC organized the story very will utilizing multiple sections and links. This really great fact box was placed at the end of this article. It broke down the various factions in the Northern Alliance. It really cleared up the confusing relations and it let you click to get as much information that you wanted.

This article is pretty standard except for the fact that it is really positive in every respect. There are not really any negative points brought up about the Northern Alliance. Even things that could be portrayed as negative were presented in a positive light. I am not sure what to make of this coverage. I do not think that anything was misreported but maybe a little candy coated.

November 20, 2001

BBC.com and The Christian Science Monitor As always the BBC article is a little longer then most online articles. What stuck me in this one was that most of the paragraphs consisted of one sentence. This made it easier to read visually but a little choppy as well. They listed some very interesting facts that were not completely linked to Afghanistan but then linked them very well. It was very good use of in-depth research. This article also spends a lot of time explaining in detail the problems that must be faced when rebuilding Afghanistan as well as the proposed solutions. These detailed explanations are what I would expect to see in print articles. The BBC did work within their medium by braking the story into sections.

This Christian Science Monitor article opened with a great personal account. It read like a story and that format always draws me in. This article talks about a lot of the things that the BBC article addressed but did it in a more interesting way. It is told as a story with characters and setting mixed with the latest news update.

November 21, 2001

Slate.com and The New York Times

This Slate editorial read like a print story. This is not necessarily a bad thing but I feel that a lot of Slate articles are straight text. I am not sure that all of their resources have been utilized. On the other hand a good strong opinion was presented that really did not need the support of pictures.

The Times article for today was the epitome of a New York Times article. It contained good writing, lots of quotes and facts, and a pinpointed topic. There really is nothing like a good New York Times article. It is its own complete package that could stand alone without all of the background that could be found online.

November 22, 2001

The New York Times

I was unable to get onto the Internet on Thanksgiving but I did read the Times while digesting in front of the fireplace. Anyway, today's article summed up a big issue very will. It discussed the coming meeting on Afghanistan's new government and the lack of unity between the UK and the US on the topic. This is a subject that I am not well versed on and this article made the situation fall into place in my mind. I think that this is something that I would find online because it is to the point and gives a rundown of a specific situation.

November 23, 2001

CNN.com and The Christian Science Monitor

The CNN.com article was the top article of the day and it gave the newest details from the front lines as well as rehashing what has gone on all week. I am not sure I understand why the big article for the day must go over things that happened days ago. I guess that this is meant for people that only read one or two articles every few days. It is probably proven that they click on the major story and they want all of their info presented in that article. I think that CNN could do better when it comes to the related article section. They basically have the most recent articles on Afghanistan posted instead of articles that specifically relate to the topic that the article is addressing.

The Christian Science Monitor is another opinion piece. I like reading the opinion pieces because people are so passionate about this topic. The other reason that I like reading the editorials is that it is refreshing to hear someone's opinions after being buried in fact based articles. I think that editorials work better in print because they do not need pictures or much multi media. In a print format this is fine but online this seems like it is breaking a rule.

November 24, 2001

CNN.com and The New York Times

The CNN.com article gives us an update of all that is going on in Afghanistan by writing a basic intro paragraph followed by a bullet point list. The Times article is set up in much of the same way. I think that it works in both mediums. Interestingly enough both formats offer more information on the update by turning to a different section or by clicking to the full article. I think that this is more of an online tactic but I think that it should be used more often in print.

November 25, 2001

The Associated Press and CNN.com

The CNN article was shockingly short (three paragraphs) and was the only one on this topic. It seems that the topic was overwhelmed with news of the US Marines. It did not even report much new information.

The AP article is on the same exact topic as the CNN article, but gives it an angle so it is longer. This article talks about the role of a certain person so it uses quotes and more background information. It also gives me new facts about the plan for the new government that I had not known had been laid out yet. I guess that due to its nature the online coverage was made more concise and did not include the analysis that this AP article included.

November 26, 2001

Time Magazine and MSNBC.com The first thing that I have to say about MSNBS is that I hate the ads. They really interfere with my reading of the articles. I think that this article is broken down well and I like the pull quotes that were used. I also like the color-coded map. The article itself was reported well and read more like a broadcast piece than a print story. This Time article is a feature so it reads differently than the other articles that I have read (and it should). I love the use of pictures and stylistic writing that is used to keep my attention. It is interesting how the story gives some sort of solution to the problems without sounding like an editorial.

* * * * * * * * * * *

Generally, I found that newspaper articles had more detail and where a little redundant in their background info, repeating things that I have literally known for weeks. The online articles usually just gave the updated facts and gave you the option of more details with sidebars and links to related articles. I enjoy the way that online sources give me so much detailed information in an organized way just a few clicks away. I feel that the Internet is a better source for news research and newspapers are better for everyday reading.

As for the placement of this topic, this story has remained front and center for the entire two weeks. Most articles that I read on my topic appeared if not on the front page and home page but close by in the front section or just a click away.

Home | First Wave | Undertow | Reflections | Stepping Stones | Weblogs

Contributors | About Us | Archive