News flash: US troops are in Iraq!

A pressing, but not very new news topic is the American War in Iraq. This is a topic that has been covered in the news for the past four years, in both newspapers, journals, books, and online news and journal sites. Yesterday, the Senate voted on a deadline for pulling out of Iraq. The vote was 50-48 in favor of pulling out of Iraq in September 2008. "This vote puts both the House and Senate on record opposing the president's war policy," says Kathy Kiely of USA Today. Kiely wrote an article in the USA Today, that is easy to read, besides the content but layout wise also. The article is not very long, taking up maybe a quarter of the page, and including a picture of Senators Ben Nelson and Chuck Hagel right in the middle of the article. The article is brief which makes it more appealing to read when skimming through the paper. Also covering this topic is The New York Times. The article, though named differently, covers the same topic in a similar view point. Unlike the layout of USA Today, the Times put this article on the first page (where I think it should be), instead of the fifth for USA Today. The article starts on the cover, which catches your attention and drags onto an other page. This article also has a picture of Ben Nelson, but at the bottom. Ben Nelson is a Senator from Nebraska, who along with Chuck Hagel had a swaying vote, and were both outspoken about the topic, Hagel said, "There will not be a military solution to Iraq, Iraq belongs to the 25 Million Iraqis who live there. It doesn't belong to the United States. Iraq is not a prize to be won or lost" (Zeleny, A1). Both the newspapers cover the article from the perspective of the Senate, who voted on this decision.

Unlike the Newspapers, the online news journal JSOnline of Milwaukee covers the issue of the Senate's decision to pass a bill for the pulling out of Iraq from President Bush's perspective. This article covers his reaction, and by doing this explains the topic well. It covers less of the Senate's vote, but at the same time, the Newspapers covered a little less of Bush's reaction. Bush did not agree with the vote on Tuesday, and responded negatively, "Bush said Wednesday that the Democratic strategy move will not force him to negotiate. He said again that he would veto any funding legislation that includes a withdrawal timeline" (Flaherty). The Online news source had a different layout. With links and advertisements across the top, sides, and bottom of the web page, the eye starts to get distracted. Often these get in the way, and bump into the article. This article is significantly longer, and in my opinion does not fit on the screen very well.

I preferred reading the articles from the Newspapers. The is layout better, and provide no distractions in the form of advertisements. I also preferred to read the articles in the perspective of the Senate, and not President Bush. I find that because the topic at hand is something that the Senate did, it should be covered from that view. I understand that the online source is covering Bush's reaction, but that being the case, the writer Flaherty should have introduced the article with what the Senate did, and not how Bush reacted.

Online news sources are more abundant then Newspapers and magazines, and can be produced much easier and quicker. But I prefer to read an article from news print, rather then on the Internet while talking to my friends on instant messenger, because it is very distracting. An other thing that I do not like, as well as the academic world, is the lack of credibility of online news sources. Who knows who is writing the article and how credible it is. I surely do not trust Joe Shmo who is pushing his agenda by making an online news paper or web page. As Dan Gillmor says from his book We the Media,

"Technology has given us a world in which almost anyone can publish a credible-looking web page. Anyone with a computer or a cell phone can post in online forums. Anyone with a moderate amount of skill with Photoshop or other image-manipulation software can distort reality. Special effects make even videos untrustworthy. We have a problem here" (Gillmor, 174).

And Gillmor is right, we do have a problem here. What my teachers have told me, is only trust websites with .edu. Or just make sure the site is not B.S. An other great alternative is using books from a library or magazines and Newspapers. So my vote, not only is to pull out of Iraq, but also is to use credible sources, and to make sure you are doing so by reading printed Newspapers over online news sources.





Citations:
1. Kiely, Kathy. (2007, March 28). Senate keeps timetable in Iraq spending bill. USA Today, p. 5A.
2. Zeleny, Jeff and Hulse, Carl. (2007, March 28). Senate Supports A Pullout Date In Iraq War Bill. The New York Times, pgs. A1 and A19.
3. Flaherty, Anne. (2007, March 28). Bush renews vow to veto Iraq timeline. Milwaukee Journal Sentinel Online. http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_IRAQ?SITE=WIMIL&SECTION=HOME
4. Gillmor, Dan. (2004). We the Media. United States of America. O'Reilly Media, Inc.