Treatment of refugees is always a thorny issue, and this article from my home town newspaper describes Australia’s latest move to manage asylum seekers.
http://www.smh.com.au/national/labors-indian-ocean-solution-20100706-zz3x.html?autostart=1
Phillip Coorey – the Chief Political Correspondent for the paper, uses an interesting mix of direct quotes and his own commentary. During the course of a fairly short article he manages to quote Prime ministers of 2 different countries, an unnamed source, a UNHCR spokesman and the Australian opposition leader. Anyone else? ;)
For most of the article, this seems to work – but I found the repeated use of short quotes for example:
A UNHCR spokesman welcomed the lifting of the freeze. He said the commission was favourably disposed towards the Timor proposal but said it was ''too early to discuss specifics''
Mr Abbott said the Coalition would turn around boats ''where circumstances permit''.
made the article rather disjointed. As a piece it certainly integrates official (and unnamed) sources into the core of the article – but I feel like it could have been done in a more coherent fashion.
I agree. Also, although the multiple sources provides a well informed view of the issues at hand, all the name references (9 in total) made it difficult to follow - especially for those of us who are un familiar with the key players
ReplyDeleteAND the President of East Timor! ... And so the pre-election fodder begins.
ReplyDeleteI found the lead of the article to be a bit too opinionated.
JULIA GILLARD has RESORTED to a policy of processing refugees abroad to try to stop the boats and shut down damaging debate over asylum seekers.
Resorted I don't think is appropriate for an article that is (at least posing) as hard news.
The bottom end of the article does seem to be a mess of "he said" "she said".
As Angie said,
Mr Abbott said the Coalition would turn around boats ''where circumstances permit.''
This sentence and other like it would be much easier to digest when paraphrased.