I guess it’s just me acting my age when I don’t want to pay for news. But what does that say for the line of work I want to get into one day. I want to have a pay check someday. Yet, I try to boycott the New York Times when at all possible. I think twice before clicking a link, and I only enter the website through google. I visit the Washington Post for my national news, but there was something about this headline, in google news, that I just had to use it as one of my five daily clicks.
If you don’t know what I’m talking about read this.
Anyways, back to the headline: Arriving as Pregnant Tourists, Leaving With American Babies, yeah that grabbed my attention.
I liked this headline for two reasons: It grabbed my attention, obviously, and tells me what the story is about--how awesome! Way to go NYT.
And the lead, well some may argue it’s a bit long, but who really cares! This is a great story. It’s cleaver and very descriptive. It’s evident that this reporter got out of her cubical to cover this story, and if she didn’t well then way to asks the right questions on the phone. I can see the scenario, and I want to know more.
SAN GABRIEL, Calif. — The building inspectors and police officers walked into the small row of connected town houses here knowing something was amiss. Neighbors had complained about noise and a lot of pregnant women coming and going. And when they went into a kitchen they saw a row of clear bassinets holding several infants, with a woman acting as a nurse hovering over them.
This story is written beautifully, well worth the click; it is organized great! I like how the city inspector who shut down the house is interviewed and his quote is up at the top.
And then the nutgraph, it’s like textbook nutgraphing (Is that a word?). It gives the reader all the background information needed right there in the fourth paragraph. It tells us why the story is important, and not just simply an entertainment piece.
For the last year, the debate over birthright citizenship has raged across the country, with some political leaders calling for an end to the 14th Amendment, which gives automatic citizenship to any baby born in the United States. Much of the debate has focused on immigrants entering illegally from poor countries in Latin America. But in this case the women were not only relatively wealthy, but also here legally on tourist visas. Most of them, officials say, have already returned to China with their American babies.
When comparing this article to one published by the Los Angeles Times, I was very pleased with the two different angles taken. The Los Angeles Times, with the home court advantage, interviewed three neighbors, two unnamed officials and San Gabriel's director of community development. The New York Times interviewed, one neighbor but focused more so on people with authority, such as: multiple immigration experts, city inspectors and community development directors.
The Los Angeles Times focused on the community aspects of the story, which makes sense because San Gabriel, location of the maternity house, is about 20 miles east of Los Angeles.
The New York Times focused on descriptions of the house and what it means to the rest of the country when Chinese infants have automatic American citizenship.
Both artilces were different from eachother and I thought they were great!
Comments