Week 12: The Greens & Coalition speak in harmony?

http://www.theage.com.au/national/refugee-plan-imminent-20101016-16odt.html

http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/1384327/Asylum-seekers-could-be-released

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/10/16/3040170.htm

http://au.news.yahoo.com/queensland/a/-/latest/8144550/libs-greens-at-one-on-kids-in-detention/

4 articles: The Age, Yahoo7, SBS & ABC


Several articles covered Immigration Minister Chris Bowen’s expected imminent announcement of what has been touted as a “major policy shift”: a plan to release children and families from detention while their asylum claims are being processed.

The Age’s article is short and merely delivers a summary of the issue. It is purely straight news, featuring comment from both Greens senator Sarah Hanson-Young and opposition immigration spokesman Scott Morrison.

The absence of any supplementary material such as photos or even links to related content is a major deficit. A “Join the conversation” feature - revealing the number of other readers simultaneously viewing - lends a participatory feel, however there was no comments section. Maybe a wise decision: when scanning for articles on the topic I came upon a Yahoo7 (AAP) article and the numerous comments submitted there were truly cringe-worthy (eg.: “Whats next? Roll the red carpet out onto the beach for them?”). I get the impression that reader comments, while not necessarily representative of the views of the news service, can potentially taint by association!

SBS features an AAP article which offers a more enhanced online experience than The Age. The headline is enthralling: “Libs, Greens at one on kids in detention” (“at one”? These two parties are usually diametrically “at odds”!). A photo of detainees peering through razor wire provides a relevant visual reference, and links to related content provide further depth.

The article includes quotes from both Hanson-Young and Morrison, including the memorable last line where Morrison lauds the Coalition’s efforts for removing children from detention in 2005. (I personally didn’t appreciate his big-noting: the Howard years were notorious for their inhumane treatment of asylum seekers.)

Ultimately - and as you’ve come to expect from me - I ended up at ABC. At 800 words their report is lengthier, but this is an issue that deserves the more comprehensive treatment which ABC afforded it. Quotes by Hanson-Young highlighted aspects of asylum seeker education and employment which are still to be worked out.

Comment by a Professor of Public Law along with a photo of detainees, radio excerpts and related articles make for a multifaceted spread.

I believe ABC presents best overall, however SBS’ succinct delivery and multimedia also result in an engaging online read.

(As an aside: I did take exception to the Professor in the ABC report using the term “boat people”, although I understand the context. The casual use of this term in the media & public domain is worrying. I would have preferred to see her say “asylum seekers who arrive on boats”, simply because this rhetoric is now becoming entrenched and I believe it is distorting.)

Week 11: It's Abbott's turn to visit Afghanistan

5 articles: SMH, news.com.au, The Daily Telegraph, The Australian & ABC

http://www.smh.com.au/national/abbott-thanks-aussie-troops-in-afghanistan-visit-20101010-16dj2.html

http://www.news.com.au/national/tony-abbott-visits-troops-in-afghanistan/story-e6frfkvr-1225936672180

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/sunday-telegraph/abbotts-afghanistan-visit-welcomed/story-e6frewt0-1225936702671

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/defence/tony-abbott-visits-troops-in-afghanistan/story-e6frg8yo-1225936621042

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/10/10/3034090.htm

I blogged on Gillard’s visit to the “war-torn” nation last week, but not to be outdone, this week Tony Abbott visited Afghanistan.

His visit was covered widely across the media, with much emphasis placed on his rejection of a joint visit with Gillard last week.

But to that in a moment.

SMH covered the trip, as did news.com.au and The Daily Telegraph. However, a cursory glance of their articles revealed the same AAP article word-for-word. Not this again! (See Week 8 blog entry.)

Multimedia was similar across the three – a couple of photos, some related coverage, a comments section for news.com.au and the Telegraph (55 comments on the news.com.au story compared with 0 for the Telegraph suggest it was more popular). SMH has a photo of a jubilant officer shaking Abbott’s hand, but all I could think was: “where was Abbott’s flak jacket?!”

All articles refer to Abbott’s “widely criticised” dismissal of a visit with Gillard due to preemptive concern over jetlag (!). Immigration Minister Chris Bowen’s comment that Abbott had wanted to be embedded with troops, like journalists often are, made me think: “step off our turf, Tony!”

The Australian also reported on the visit, their article compiled by “staff writers”, “with AAP”. Hmmm… BUT! Although their article is clearly drawn from the same source, extra paragraphs demonstrate further research. They reveal Gillard’s reaction to Abbott’s refusal: “Ms Gillard took political advantage by saying she had managed to visit Afghanistan… without ill-effect”. And Abbott’s rebuttal: “Abbott accused the Prime Minister of playing politics about his travel movements, in a cheap attempt to raise doubt about his commitment to Australia's participation in the conflict”.

A short video with snippets of his trip gives us a sense of the visit but the audio is a bit jumpy.

ABC’s – original - story was shorter but contained most essential information. I liked the included video – a short clip from ABC’s Insiders. Host Barrie Cassidy and a few others discussed the trip and mentioned declining public support for the war, plus the upcoming parliamentary debate on the war for November.

My vote goes to both The Australian and ABC this week.

Week 10: "GI Julia" visits troops

2 articles: The Herald Sun & The Daily Telegraph

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/national/prime-minister-julia-gillard-visits-afghanistan/story-e6frf7l6-1225933363986

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/gi-julia-gillard-surprises-afghan-front-line/story-e6freuy9-1225933509982

The Herald Sun features a picture of Gillard as we’ve never seen her before – in army helmet and flak jacket - during her “whirlwind”, “gruelling”, “high-profile” “surprise” trip to the “war-torn” nation to visit “embattled” Afghan President Karzai and Aussie troops.

The adjective-rich Herald Sun story by Mark Kenny about Gillard’s visit to Afghanistan emphasises that public sentiment is turning against Australian involvement in the war. We are told Gillard assured forces that their role is in the “national interest” and that it’s been “a really hard year, a really hard few months”. This quote provides an opening which the Herald Sun disappointingly doesn’t utilise – no figures on Australian troop numbers, or recent troop casualties, are provided. (It’s a shame the article did not divulge this important and highly relevant information, but considering the article highlighted increasing public disapproval with Australia’s involvement, maybe skipping this information was deliberate?)

However a link to a short Sky News video filled in some gaps, revealing that the roughly 1,500 Australian troops in Afghanistan are to be withdrawn within four years. Links to other articles on the war are provided.

Kenny is also writer for The Daily Telegraph’s significantly shorter story. It contains very similar, but more compact and succinct, content. Extra details are disclosed – the 21 Australian troop casualties, and that Gillard’s trip was kept secret for “security reasons”.

I’d describe the accompanying multimedia as voluminous: the “multimedia showcase” is extensive - even disproportionate - for such a tiny article. So while last week I lamented a shortfall in multimedia (SMH article), this week I’m bemoaning the excessive multimedia in the Telegraph. But I believe that for multimedia to be effective, it should always be well-placed and appropriate.

17 comments under the Telegraph’s article indicates less hits than the 69 for the Herald - could this be because readers were too overwhelmed by all the multimedia to comment (or even read the article)?!

Week 9: The Speaker Squabble: the sparring continues

2 articles: SMH & ABC

http://www.smh.com.au/national/no-end-to-speaker-squabble-20100926-15rz6.html

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/09/26/3022207.htm

I can’t resist articles with an adversarial slant, but these two articles were so full of combative comment between the government and opposition on the issue of parliamentary Speaker arrangements it was almost overkill. That isn’t to suggest, however, that either article was inflating the issue, and weren’t merely reporting the goings-on. No - the content of both articles is extremely indicative of the relationship the government shares with the opposition: a fraught one.

We endured their squabbling in the lead up to, during, and after the election. For a while I found the back-and-forth insults hurled between both sides captivating. I’m not so sure anymore.

The SMH article starts with PM Gillard likening Abbott to a “bull in a China shop” for reneging on parliamentary reform. It then jumps to reassurances by Christopher Pyne (opposition), to accusations by Anthony Albanese (Labor), finger-pointing from Pyne, a denial by Albanese, more criticism from Pyne, and culminating in imputations from deputy opposition leader Julie Bishop. My head was spinning.

In terms of standout quotes, Pyne hit the nail on the head with: "It's a bit of an arcane debate for the public”. His comment that the pairing of speakers would be similar to “asking a Collingwood player from yesterday's grand final to play for St Kilda next week” injected some (needed) humour.

In relation to content, there isn’t much to differentiate the ABC article, and it has all the same players: Gillard, Pyne, Albanese and Bishop. However there is less jumping around and a steadier, more concise flow.

ABC utilised fitting quotes displaying the hostility. Pyne refers to politics as a “battlefield”, and Gillard’s frustration is palpable: “Mr Abbott says 'my job is to be a wrecker'… That's all he wants to do - smash things, trash things, break them up."

The article ends with the revelation that Gillard and her partner have finally moved into The Lodge after delays. However it left me thinking: human interest or irrelevant?

Nevertheless, I preferred the ABC article. Its extensive multimedia on the issue is impressive, and photos brightened up the story. SMH have included a short video, but they have disappointed me of late with their lack of multimedia - something online articles ignore at their own peril.

Week 8: The national news agency strikes

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/people-in-politics/greens-move-to-legislate-euthanasia/story-fn5oatrf-1225926203755

http://www.smh.com.au/national/greens-reignite-righttodie-debate-20100919-15hk9.html

http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/1357636/Greens-move-to-legalise-euthanasia

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/09/19/3015782.htm

Articles: 19/09/2010

This week’s articles initially presented me with somewhat of a challenge. My blog’s objective has always been to “compare and contrast” news articles – those generated by different news organisations but on the same topic, to evaluate which article presents best online.

Which is why I was rendered confused after deciding on The Australian and SMH’s versions of Bob Brown’s announcement of his desire to overturn laws blocking the ACT and NT’s rights to legislate on euthanasia. Based on the headlines, I was led to believe they’d each provide their own take on the issue – “Greens move to legislate euthanasia” (The Australian) and “Greens reignite right-to-die debate” (SMH).

Also, the multimedia differed. Absolutely none in the sterile SMH article, but “Related Coverage” in The Australian, plus a handy hyperlink leading to a Bob Brown profile (did you know he was formerly a doctor who was working in a London hospital the same night an overdosed Jimi Hendrix was brought in? Neither did I). You could say I was thoroughly hoodwinked prior to reading any text that these were different articles.

However, the articles were word-for-word duplications! Yes, clearly AAP is a heavily used resource by both News Ltd (The Australian) and Fairfax (SMH), but as far as I’m concerned a bit of tweaking to at least give the impression of uniqueness wouldn’t have gone astray.

I was forced to look elsewhere for salvation – however SBS did not provide relief. Points to SBS for at least attempting to put their own stamp on the article (they rearranged some of the paragraphs!) but it’s also the exact same AAP article.

My search ended at ABC. Their article, “Brown continues fight against euthanasia ban”, not only provides a pic of an earnest looking Brown, but is a completely different article!

It is lighter on content, but is clearly the stand out player. It gives some historical context to the legislation ban issue and contains completely different quotes by Brown.

What can I say? ABC wins for originality.