Crime and politics: the usual suspects

Putting aside for a moment Iraq’s newsworthiness, a New York Times article takes a closer at another unstable nation in the Middle East, as it raises the possibility of Christian factions in Lebanon precipitating another civil war. The article begins dramatically by suggesting that militias are training for war, but it takes four paragraphs before actually explaining why Christians are at conflict with one another. Later, the article goes into more detail, rationalizing the claim by explaining how and where militant factions are training and by giving population statistics to prove Christians’ minority status in that country.

The Boston Globe, on the other hand, missed out on an opportunity to give a story some color with a dramatic lede. An article in today’s paper discusses a gangster shootout that will be reenacted in Bangor, Maine, this Columbus Day after months of “obsessive” planning. Why not include some of the local color and researched historical details in the lede? Some of the details emerge later in the article, such as this quote from an 85-year-old man there for the original event: “He said he remembers watching coins fall out of Brady's pocket when the gangster's limp body was lifted into a basket.” Overall, though, the article disappoints: it’s a gangster story without suspense or excitement.

In a brief article in The MetroWest Daily News today, the reporter overestimates the dramatic potential of a story that has not already been solved and left to history—there is hardly a story to tell. The article reports objectively and with little fanfare that a man shot a gun into the air outside the Tin Pan Alley Grill in Framingham, Mass., but the brief quotes from Framingham police that follow are anticlimactic, as no one seems to have been hurt and the shooter has not been identified. And the name “Tin Pan Alley Grill” has such a nice ring to it, for a crime story…Chalk that up to one missed opportunity for a good crime story.

In The Washington Post, an article on the GOP presidential nominees rests on two underlying assumptions: that the Democratic Party has a clear party image, and that Hillary Clinton is at the forefront of the race among the Democrats. Neither of those assumptions ought to be made at this point in the race. The article clearly shows the complexity of Republican candidates seeking to define themselves apart from President Bush without alienating the party’s most loyal members, but in doing so, it portrays the Republicans’ situation as a unique one. By the same token, shouldn’t the article also consider whether Democratic candidates have found a separate identity from that of just running as the opposing party to the incumbent? The Democratic situation is not the point of the article, but it should be considered at some point. Also, the quote at the end of the article suggests without much subtlety that Clinton will win the Democratic nomination, but this seems like too strong a conviction to end an article on this early in the race.