Version:1.0 StartHTML:0000000105 EndHTML:0000004897 StartFragment:0000001901 EndFragment:0000004861
The beginning of this article on turmoil in Sudan uses a technique I see all the time in news reporting. The author starts out with a vibrant, visual description of Sudan: "Children with shrapnel wounds lie on metal hospital cots. Thousands of others have been huddling in caves and stony riverbeds, fleeing the fighter jets and bombers prowling the skies. Villages are empty, fields unplowed. At the faintest buzz of a plane, people scatter into the bush, in a panic." This heartrending description is then followed by a more detached report of the politics related to the images: "Despite an agreement signed only days ago to bring peace to this part of central Sudan, it seems to be sliding inexorably toward war." This pattern in style switches continues further into the article, but instead of first touching me, then informing me, the pattern just makes me confused. I can keep track of neither the political situation, nor the extent of human suffering. I think the article could have been more effective in reporting the events in Sudan if it had first explained all the politics involved, and then explained what effect these politics had on ordinary people. The author hasn't created the fluency necessary for such varied writing. For example: "But as the conflicts in the western region of Darfur and southern Sudan long before that have proved, counterinsurgencies often cast a wide net.
At a small, mountainside hospital here in Lewere, an entire ward is filled with victims who said they were at a well, fetching water, when they were bombed. Most are children. Their whimpers filter through the mesh windows, along with the pungent smells of antiseptic solution and decaying flesh."
Basically the author is trying to say that the government's efforts to stop rebel groups ends up killing lots of innocent people too, like in Lewere. But instead, by citing past conflicts in Sudan, using the word "counterinsurgencies," using no transition between paragraphs, and failing to emphasize the innocence of the victims and who had injured them, the point does not come across strongly to a confused, slightly ignorant person like me. And I like to think there are plenty of confused, slightly ignorant Americans out there who would like to know what's going on in Sudan without being subject to poorly executed reporting tricks, like the switch between visual and fact. Its one thing to use that technique with baseball articles or CMT essays but in this situation, with such an important topic, when it seems the author had actually visited Sudan to write it, and clearly can write well based on his vibrant imagery, the style just didn't work.
2 comments:
I can see how that is confusing, and agree with you. If you're going to write an informative article, be informative, and if you're going to describe it in detail, use the whole article. Don't just mix the two together. I'm curious as to why you thought the author had been to Sudan, aside from his/her vivid imagery. Did their images seem like something that would need to be seen firsthand? What clued you in?
I completely agree with the majority of what you said--journalism should be objective, the author is clearly presenting a skewed view by starting off with a lengthy description of Sudanese children crippled by war. I am also not a fan of being subjected to journalists' "creativity" when I honestly just want to know what's going on. However, nobody wants to read an article that kicks off with boring political jargon.
This past year I went on a field trip for "The Proclamation," where I listened to a columnist give a talk on writing a good article. The first thing he said: start by painting a picture. This is what the author of this article was attempting to do--first make us care, then explain to us what the conflict is.
I do agree with you though. The horrific war scene this journalist wrote easily could have been pulled from any war literature ever written. We get it. War is bad. The author needs to explain more of this situation's specifics (like you said) to overcome our desensitized mindsets.
Post a Comment