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.