Reading today's coverage of BP's latest attempt to stop the oil spill highlighted some interesting differences between the NY Times and the one in the Boston Globe.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/14/us/14cap.html?_r=1&hp
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2010/07/13/bp_testing_effectiveness_of_new_cap_on_damaged_well/
Some quick statistics:
Word count- BG:549 NYT:1,080
Multimedia - BG: Film clip NYT: Interactive map
Number of reporters involved- BG: 1 NYT:2
Number of people directly quoted in article- BG: 1 (not from BP) NYT: 3 (all from BP)
The NY Times, at double the word count, provided a much more comprehensive update - focusing on the technical challenges that needed to be overcome the leak. There was information on the process involved, how practise runs had been actioned and direct quotes from two BP executives.
What I found most striking though, was the difference in the extent direct quotes were used in both articles. Both pieces refered to comments made by Doug Sutter- BP's Chief Operating Officer. The Times quotes Mr Sutter directly, while the Globe uses an indirect method.
"The Helix Producer, began operating yesterday and should be up to its capacity of collecting roughly 1 million gallons of oil a day within a few days, chief operating officer Doug Suttles said".
What I found odd was that the only direct quote in the Globe was from a Professor from the University of Houston. It was as if the Globe reporter wasn't at the BP press briefings and relied on other sources to write the article.
The Times credits co-authorship of the article to a reporter in London - so perhaps he was able to obtain more timely information (given London is 5 hours ahead of Boston it's possible!) I could be being a bit harsh with my analysis- let's see what happens over the next couple of days.
Writing for the Globe: Tom Breen
Writing for the times: Henry Fountain (New Orleans) and Alan Cowell (London)
Hello Angie,
ReplyDeleteI just noticed you posted something somewhat similar to what I did. I don't think you're being too harsh with your analysis. I think it's good we're starting to notice such things!
I wonder if the Globe and the Times spread their reporting between the two papers since they are owned by the same entity.
ReplyDeleteI don't think your analysis is harsh at all. It seems to me that the Globes article is a instance of covering the coverage, while the Times is more actively involved in finding the story.
ReplyDelete