U.S. Soldier Pleads Guilty to Killing 2 Iraqis
The New York Times article, â€śG.I. Gets 18-Year Prison Term for Killing 2 Captive Iraqis,â€? is about the sentence Corey R. Clagett received Thursday. The article describes Clagettâ€™s case in depth and describes the situation in which the murders took place. The article also gives a lot of information regarding the court cases of two fellow soldiers involved in the same case and how oneâ€™s conviction increases the chance of anotherâ€™s conviction. The article is well-balanced and the story is a hard news story told without emotion. The story also included quotes from Clagett and his lawyer. The link to this article is http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/26/world/middleeast/26abuse.html
The lead was not too long, and it summarized the important news of the soldier pleaded guilty to killing two Iraqis and was sentenced to 18 years in prison. Also, the writer followed the standard lead format of referring to Clagett as â€śan army infantrymanâ€? since he is not well-known and waited until the next paragraph to say his name.
A Los Angeles Times article covered this same story in an article called, â€śThird soldier pleads guilty in Iraqi menâ€™s deaths.â€? This lead was shorter than The New York Times article, but it had less specific information in it. The writer referred to the Iraqi killings by â€śhis crimesâ€? instead of saying exactly what the crimes were like The New York Times did. The Los Angeles Times also included emotion in their lead by describing how Clagett pleaded guilty by saying his plea was â€śin clinical detailâ€? and that â€śhe was profoundly sorry for what he had done.â€? The Los Angeles Times also included his name in the lead unlike The New York Times.
The link to this article is http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-soldier26jan26,1,2785019.story?coll=la-headlines-nation&track=crosspromo
In my opinion, The New York Times article was much better at communicating the news than The Los Angeles Times. The Los Angeles Times seemed as though it was trying to elicit sympathy from the audience for the convicted soldier by emphasizing emotions because it included several quotes from his mother, the fact that she was crying, and how he sent home his army paychecks. Also, the article said, â€śHis eyes downcast, Clagett told a military court that he had conspired with two other U.S. soldiersâ€¦â€?. The writer could have left out the part about his eyes being downcast and just reported what Clagett said. The lead was not very strong either because the writer did not summarize the most newsworthy information. The writer simply said Clagett â€śconfessed his crimesâ€? and did not tell readers what the crimes were. The writer also included the soldierâ€™s whole name when leads typically just give a description of the person and state the name in the next paragraph unless the person is very well-known. I did not think that the word, â€śclinical,â€? was a good word choice either. According to dictionary.com, clinical does mean â€śextremely objective and realistic,â€? but all the other definitions have to do with diseases or clinics. Also, the lead started off by saying Clagett was â€śprofoundly sorry for what he had done.â€? The adverb, â€śprofoundly,â€? should not have been included because it reveals opinion of the writerâ€™s behalf, and the statement sets the tone for the article that the reader should feel sorry for Clagett instead of just letting the reader decide for themselves how they feel about the conviction. I liked The New York Times article because the lead was more effective. It was effective because it included the newsworthy information and withheld the name until later. Also, this article stated the information more objectively.