NY Times Logs: October 24th - 26th

Monday, October 24^th:

I thought that that national issues that the Times covered in today’s paper were interesting – I’m finding occasionally that I don’t understand why some things are put on the cover while others are left out (notably, why an article about hearing aides was put on the cover, but the main story on the national page was about the contentious issue of selling water and pressure on farmers to not water their crops, rather, selling that water to cities that depend on this disappearing resource.)  It’s making me wonder about how the layout of the front page is determined, and more importantly, how what is put on the front page is determined.

I thought that the three snapshots of Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta accompanying the article on military spending captured well the fraught and tense debate over the defense budget that is now being waged in Congress.  After the victories against Al Quaeda in the past year, Panetta is urging Congress to not cut the defense budget, like, he insists, they have done in the past.  I thought that the lead of the article was very descriptive yet concise, and the content of the article was excellent.  I thought that it was extremely laid out and detailed about both the Panetta and the vast challenges he faces in Washington.  

Tuesday, October 25^th:

I liked the layout of the Times today, with the emphasis on the small pictures that were “Snapshots of Suburban Poverty.”  I thought the photos were very interesting and very stark.  I liked the fact that they displayed multiple small photos, rather than one large one – I think this helps to drive home the point that this problem is widespread and affecting many people.  Especially considering that the suburbs were largely seen as symbols of American prosperity and happiness in the 1950s, I think that the article on suburban poverty is very interesting and very indicative of the problems that the American people now face.  The statistics provided in the article are astounding.  “The increase [of poor] in the suburbs was 53 percent, compared with 26 percent in cities.  The recession accelerated the pace: two-thirds of the new suburban poor were added from 2007 to 2010.”

The pictures that the Times provided fit the article so well, and I think provided a needed balance to the article.  I personally like and appreciate photojournalism a lot and think that especially with an article that involves a lot of raw data, having these snapshots to accompany makes good sense for people that might otherwise shy away from such a statistics and numbers-laden article.

Wednesday, October 26^th:  

I enjoyed a lot of the content in today’s issue; writing style made a big impression on me with several of the pieces.  I thought the story on the Iraqi circus had a great writing style that fit the quirkiness of the article’s content.  Instead of being a conventional news article, the piece told a story of rebuilding and attempts to return to normalcy in a war-torn country.  And normalcy is certainly not the first thing one would think of when confronted with the words “circus in Iraq.”  I particularly enjoyed the author’s writing in the first paragraphs and thought it really complemented the subject and photos.  It shows both the slowness and frustration that comes with rebuilding a war torn country, as well as the willingness and need of its citizens to return to some sort of ‘normal life,’ with diversions and entertainment that draws away from the reality of today’s Iraq.

I thought that the article on rescue efforts in Turkey provided a great example of a classic summary lead and story.  I thought that the article provided good description of rescue efforts in the beginning and described the scene in Turkey very well (the pictures of the rubble definitely helped bolster the article’s description).  I was surprised that the article only devoted two short paragraphs to the question of some buildings’ poor construction.  The article only presented the question of whether or not the buildings’ construction was inadequate, but did nothing to answer – probably because more evidence will have to be determined before the questioned can be answered.