Words to know

Here's an article from the New York Times. It's a pretty light feature story about Afghanistan's women's soccer team.

For a Women’s Soccer Team, Competing Is a Victory

KABUL, Afghanistan — On Tuesday the Afghan national women’s soccer team had only two days left to practice before leaving for its first international competition.

They took turns with long shots at the goal, practiced blocking penalty kicks and dribbled the ball to one another around a circle.

Then armed soldiers burst through a gate in the corner, ordering them — politely — to go to the edges of the field. Overhead there was an awful roar, then the rotor wash of incoming helicopters, sending dirt and debris flying in their faces.

Once again, NATO had reclaimed its helipad, and the women had to vacate the only place in the capital where it was safe for them to play.

“I hate helicopters, but anywhere else, we would not be able to play in public. We would be attacked,” said Khalida Popal, a women’s soccer federation official and one of the longest-serving team members. She plays defender on the team, but is a tireless attacker when it comes to promoting women’s soccer, or football, as it is called here and in most places in the world.

“This is how I fight,” she said. “We want to send a message over the world to show that women can play football, and study, and work.”

None of those activities have been easy for Afghanistan’s women, but sports particularly have been difficult. Completely banned during the Taliban era, women’s sports have made only a fitful comeback, hampered by low budgets and insecurity — but most of all, by a lack of places to play in a society where even the most modest display of the body is often treated as a social crime.

“Everywhere we go, people are saying to us: ‘Why are you playing football? This is not a woman’s game,’ ” Ms. Popal said.

While the country has some sort of international team in 22 women’s sports, mostly those efforts are just starting off. In the 2008 Olympics, only one Afghan woman competed, in track and field, while just two competed in 2004, according to Shukaria Hikmat, head of the Afghanistan Women’s Olympic Committee.

In men’s sports, on the other hand, Afghanistan has been able to punch well above its weight, despite the war. Its cricket players are national heroes, particularly after defeating Scotland recently, and its tae kwon do team is an Asian power.

On Thursday, the women’s soccer team flies to Bangladesh for its first official international competition, a tournament sponsored by the South Asian Football Federation. “Just competing internationally will be enough of a victory,” said the team’s coach, Wahidullah Wahidi, especially since the Afghan women will be playing teams from countries where women’s soccer is well established.

The Afghan team has multiple handicaps. It is allowed to use the soccer field, inside a NATO base in Kabul, only three times a week — landings permitting. (And that only because President Hamid Karzai ordered the field made available after the team had an unexpectedly strong showing in a friendly competition against Pakistan.)

The captain is a 16-year-old high school student, Roya Noori, a diminutive striker with a ferocious kick. Four of the top players are living in America, and have had no chance to practice with the team before the tournament in Bangladesh. Even their sports clothes and shoes are a hodgepodge of assorted gear — shorts or short sleeves are not in their ensembles.

Most players, however, dispense with head scarves — otherwise required dress for women in public here — as just too impractical. “It could be dangerous,” Ms. Popal said. “Another player could grab it and strangle you.”

Ms. Popal, 23, an engineering student, comes from a conservative Pashtun family. When she showed an aptitude for the game in high school, her father and brothers opposed the idea of her pursuing club play. Nearly all of Afghanistan’s 21 girls’ clubs are in the capital city.

“I wore them down with my love for football, and finally they agreed,” she said. That was five years ago. “Now they are very proud.” They are also worried. As a high-profile spokeswoman for women’s soccer, she has drawn death threats, and is often taunted on the street, she said.

“This is the civil right of every woman,” Mr. Wahidi said. “Sport should not just be for men. The problem with our country is there are so many illiterates, 85 percent of our people, who don’t know any better.”

In October, the Afghan team had an exhibition game with the women’s team of the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force. “We wanted to show them Afghans are friendly people, not like the stupid people they are fighting,” Ms. Popal said.

The ISAF team captain was a Marine sergeant, Danielle Figueroa. “I realized that I’ve taken a lot for granted just being able to play any sport,” she said. “It didn’t dawn on me until last weekend when we got a chance to talk to them that this is new for them.”

Uninterrupted by helicopter landings, Afghanistan’s women beat NATO’s, 1-0.

Since the subject matter relates to Islam, something we've been talking extensively about in my English class, I thought this would be a good article to use to explain some of the technical terms of newspaper writing.

Newspaper articles don't have titles, they have headlines, which serve an obvious purpose: to attract the reader's attention and provide a basic idea of what the article is going to be about. This headline leads a reader to crave more information.

While this particular article does not have one, a "sub-headline" that is often seen in articles is technically called a deck, and is used to provide further clarifying information. Decks are most common for large stories that dominate the page.

The first paragraph is called the lead. It is used to engage the reader and does not necessarily provide crucial information to the story. This lead is great at building suspense. It makes the story actually like a story and not just a boring arrangement of facts, which isn't what news is supposed to be. While much of news is factual, some of the best journalism results when the writer strives to tell a story. This is where different perspectives come out and a more complete picture of a situation is grasped. Emotion is not illegal in news writing if it's conveyed accurately.

A less common term is a nut graph. This is usually used in feature stories, such as this one, and is a paragraph which contains the most important information, and what makes the story newsworthy. In this story, the nut graph would probably be "On Thursday, the women’s soccer team flies to Bangladesh for its first official international competition, a tournament sponsored by the South Asian Football Federation. “Just competing internationally will be enough of a victory,” said the team’s coach, Wahidullah Wahidi, especially since the Afghan women will be playing teams from countries where women’s soccer is well established." This paragraph conveys concisely the essence of the story.

In more factual news stories or in briefs (very short articles meant only to relay the basics on a topic and not delve into a story, usually around 150-200 words), the inverted pyramid technique is used. This means that the most important information goes at the beginning of the article, while the less important facts go toward the end. This way readers can quickly gain the information they want on a basic topic.

If more relevant terms come up, I'll be sure to post about them! A

As for this article in general, I thought this was a great article. It didn't alienate Afghan women. In fact, it demonstrated the common interest of soccer that American women and Afghan women share. It succinctly explained the lack of women's rights while also providing the perspective of the women themselves and tying it all together in an engaging story. Kudos to Rod Nordland!

The stuff behind the news

I am not the most informed person when it comes to current events. Considering I'm someone very interested in journalism, this probably isn't a good thing. However, I can't help but be fairly impatient in the learning process. Because, when I try to sit down and read a newspaper on a hot topic-- the crisis in the housing market or the engagement of US troops overseas-- I often find myself needing to search back... and back... and back... to gain the information I need to really understand the issues. But there just aren't enough hours in the day for me to trace the Middle East conflict back to its origins by myself. That would require backpedaling through multiple decades, not just the papers of the past few weeks, or even back to September 11, 2001.
I feel like this isn't just an issue in newspapers and current events. Often, when people are sharing stories from their lives with others, they assume that their listeners know the whole story. But usually, people aren't fully informed on the histories of people they're talking to. Understanding of others' issues has a tendency to be shallow because people assume greater depth of others' knowledge than is actually true. This seems to come up in the book we're reading for English, Reading Lolita in Tehran. Many of the revolutionaries assume knowledge about America. They make assertions that America is a "decadent" and morally corrupt place with a completely deplorable culture, but they don't really provide evidence that is convincing. Readers who are familiar with American culture are left frustrated by, for example, claims made by Nafisi's students that demonstrate disrespect for American culture and disregard for the reality.
Apparently, at least in terms of news, I'm not the only one who has realized the need for more background information. ProPublica, which does investigative journalism, and students at NYU, are working together on explainer.net, which will provide background information in prominent issues. For example, the latest post addresses 3 questions about Wikileaks. I think many people should be made aware of this website, for it is surely something that could help a huge number of people to become informed. Though it would be more convenient for newspapers to take care of conveying background information, there's just not enough space.
People should continue to attempt to give people background information the way Explainer.net has, in all areas of life. Doing so would be a step away from widespread ignorance. A nice side benefit may also be that people would be more willing to read and follow news if they know something about it.

Newspapers: Where are they and where are they going?

I wrote in my last post about my frustration with the Chicago Tribune. But then I was forced to think about newspapers as businesses-- businesses that need to make money. I then came across this post, entitled "10 Ways Newspapers Can Still Make Money" (the list actually includes 12). It was interesting to see at least one person's ideas on how the journalism industry has the potential to evolve, rather than a whole bunch of companies just going under. While ideas 1 and 2, which were ways to get newspapers on the computer, seemed logical to me, number 4 seemed too drastic and was unsettling to me. It parallels the issue of Kindle-like devices versus books. There are lots of people who appreciate the ease of use of something like a Kindle, but I know many people who have said that they like the way it feels to hold a book and turn the pages. I feel as though the same must be true for many newspaper readers who like to wake up to a cup of coffee and a fresh newspaper, even if it results in some ink on the fingers.
This led me to think about idea number 8. Having a weekly publication, while eliminating week-day papers, may be a good way for newspapers to remain in print but saving on printing costs by getting rid of the week-day papers that many people don't read thoroughly anymore because they're getting their news online. If that were too drastic, newspapers could minimize printing costs by only releasing small papers during the week, which would contain major headlines and brief stories. This would be easy for businesspeople to pick up on their way out the door and read quickly during their commute or during breaks at work.
This article and this one demonstrate that not as many people are reading the newspaper. Will people's attachment to printed works be enough to keep newspapers in physical print? Are there any factors besides convenience that contribute to the declining readership of physical newspapers?

Tribune vs. WSJ

Before one can even begin to talk about the quality of the writing of a newspaper, attention should really be paid to the layout of each. I truly believe that the quality of journalism resides not only in the text itself, but in the placement of text and the layout of pages. I believe the primary concern of the front page of a newspaper should be to alert readers to the most important, breaking news stories of the day. It should not be for large photos and fluffy features stories that belong a few pages into the front section and not dominating the front page of a newspaper.
The Chicago Tribune is meant to be a paper that delivers the most important news, while the Wall Street Journal is primarily focused on economics. Nonetheless, it is the WSJ that provides a box entitled "What's News." It gives brief teasers for major stories from around the world, including a group of attacks in Afghanistan that killed 11 people and President Obama's return from his 10-day Asia trip, two news stories that are not even mentioned on the front page of the Trib. In fact, there is no story about Obama's return in the entire front section, and the deadly blasts in Afghanistan are not mentioned until page 12 of the front section.
Furthermore, the Journal just looks like a more legitimate paper in terms of the fonts used, the size of the text, the number of pictures and ads, and the stories included. In 2008, the Chicago Tribune revamped its entire paper in an effort to make it more "reader-friendly." While the layout is certainly pleasing to the eyes, it just seems to have forfeited any attempt to be journalistic. Here's one positive comment on an article about the new design:

Newspapers are not all about the editorial. If that were true, then people would pick up bland, text only newspapers and read them.

In fact, readers hardly read the stories at all. They read headlines, photos and captions. Fish around on the web for some newspaper focus groups and you will see that most readers actually think there is more inside of a newspaper that is designed like the new Chicago Tribune than with a New York Times design.

Readers scan, not read. Give them informational headlines, photos and captions and they might just read the story. Don't give them those things and they won't dig into their pockets to purchase the paper.

Newspapers should be for their readers, not for journalists.

I think this design is nice. I think they could have gone a little bolder with it too.

This commenter says that readers scan papers, which is true. But if that's the case, shouldn't a paper's goal to be to convey as much important information as possible, in an accessible format on the front page? It's true, newspapers need to make money. But when papers like the Tribune focus so very much on a pleasing layout- including enormous teasers, excessive sports photos and information on the front page, and gratuitous advertisements- the core value of journalism is put on the line. Yes, print journalism may be a sinking ship. But as the WSJ shows, it's possible for a paper to have an approachable, reader-friendly layout while still conveying important news to readers.

Frustration

The Global Language Monitor identifies frustration as a key word in news stories about Obama recently, as opposed to anger and rage. A search on the New York Times website identifies 22 articles from today alone that include the word frustration, and it's not just in political articles. So what's special about this word? What differentiates it from anger and rage, and how does it change the meaning of an article or the perception of a political trend to say that people are "frustrated" rather than enraged?

I think frustration carries the weight of time more than rage does. Frustration is the manifestation of a build-up of anger and rage over time, in my opinion. So it makes sense that while words used in association with Obama were previously "anger" and "rage", but now those are replaced with "frustration" as the intensity of the emotion dissipates but the quantity continues to build.
It is not simply the job of newspapers to cover immediate breaking news, but to track trends. The New York Times has "Times Topics" for just this purpose. This topic is all about health care, and a simple search shows that the word "frustration" comes up on the home page for the topic. "Frustration" seems to indicate a period of brewing unrest, perhaps between stages of "rage."
It may seem petty, but to journalists who are struggling to convey issues without infusing bias and without being excessively wordy, differentiating between rage and frustration can be crucial to the effectiveness of the article and readers' understanding. I think tracking the occurrence of the word "frustration" as opposed to the word "rage" would be an interesting task in newspaper reading. Seeing how words are used in context is important for the sake of getting the best understanding out of news stories, and being able to build upon prior knowledge and prior newspaper readings in order to get the fullest meaning out of every word of every story.

US & Lumumba

The Poisonwood Bible, which I'm reading in my English class, has much to do with the political turmoil in the Congo in the 60's, 70's, and 80's. One of the main points of conversation is the brief leadership of Patrice Lumumba and his undercover execution, which, according to the book was facilitated by the CIA.
Much of the information about Lumumba in Poisonwood is told from the perspective of Leah, a Lumumba supporter who scorns the United States' fierce and uninformed opposition to anything that resembles socialism or communism.
This is an interesting perspective, that of an anti-American American living in Africa. I was interested to get an idea of the picture of Africa that Americans were being exposed to in 1960. Two articles, one from the Los Angeles Times and one from the New York Times, contain some signs of the United States' Cold War anti-Soviet, anti-communist fears.
The LA times article is headlined, "'Death to Lumumba,' Mob Cries." The article reads, "'Gentlemen, you are now making contact with Congolese reality,' he said. 'There is no compromise between liberty and slavery.'" This quote is placed in the article completely out of context. It makes Lumumba sound like a monster, but we don't really know what the circumstances were. Lumumba's press aide is described as a "leftist expatriate." An anti-Lumumba person is quoted as saying "'Down with communism, down with the government of Lumumba.'" It seems that the media is doing its best to feed the terror of the Red Scare and point out another evil communist threat.
The NY Times article describes Lumumba's government as being in possession of planes which have "markings of the Soviet Union."
When, in Poisonwood, Rachel, Leah, and Adah are talking about the turmoil in the Congo and in other parts of Africa, Rachel says, "'...I read the papers. Ronald Reagan is keeping us safe from the socialistic dictators, and you should be grateful for it.'" She goes on to say, "'I never said I was the expert. I just said I read the papers.'" While this part of the book is happening in the 80's, it still demonstrates the influence of the newspapers on people's thinking. Rachel, living in Africa, is still getting her information from American papers, and is thus convinced that people around her are "socialistic dictators."
It makes me wonder why newspapers do this. Who do they have to answer to that is forcing them to add to the overwhelming American sentiment? Aren't papers there to tell the facts in an unbiased way, allowing people to form their own opinions? It's as though the papers feel obligated to fuel drama. These articles show just how present the Red Scare was in American society.

Helping Africa

In class today, we talked about the American media's portrayal of Africa. Some key themes we noted were corruption, disease, and reliance on foreign aid, and overall we came to a conclusion that on the whole, the messages the American people are receiving about Africa are extremely negative, with the continent of Africa shown as a downtrodden, hopeless place that is constantly reliant on foreign assistance.

Having just had this discussion, it was interesting to stumble upon this article, written by a Nigerian scholar and scientist, Oyeniyi Akende. Believe it or not, it seems like the American media's picture of Africa is somewhat accurate at least on one level, as Akende admits that many African people do not give technology a chance and/or do not understand it.

Then again, America deserves to be scolded at least a little bit. Akende says that international assistance is largely useless because foreigners don't understand Africans' needs.

This presents a bit of an issue. Akende says that Africa needs to develop at least technologically, and foreigners want to help, but neither party seems to know just what's good for African people, especially because we call them just that: "African." Africa is a huge continent with many different countries, of course, not to mention varying local needs and cultures. So who can find out what everyday Africans think? Whose job is it to pinpoint what is going to help a Nigerian, an Ethiopian, a Sudanese? There needs to be more desire to learn from people both in and out of Africa. Africans need to learn what's best for themselves, and American's need to make a conscious effort to get past the generalizations they assume and learn about an entire continent that they have reduced to a single, monotonous entity.

Soldiers' Hidden Struggles

Browsing New York Times online, I came across a story about elevated numbers of suicides occurring at Fort Hood in Texas, the site where Nidal Hasan killed 13 people last year. While this story was huge news last November, it's pretty troubling to me that according to NYTimes, 14 people have committed suicide at Ford Hood alone and I haven't heard a peep until now.

The story of the original Ft. Hood shooting was told with detail and emotion, painting a picture of a horrific crime committed against some lurking foreign enemy living as an abomination in our nearly perfect country. Last November, the media seemed all too willing to pounce on the opportunity to perpetuate Americans' socially constructed myth of good guys vs. bad guys, of evil threatening good but never being able to prevail.

As a parade of ambulances wailed to the scene of the shootings, officials said the extent of injuries to the wounded varied significantly, with some in critical condition and others lightly wounded. General Cone praised the first-responders and the medics who acted quickly to administer first aid at the scene.

A story. We're given details, meant to evoke emotion to paint a picture of the tragic day. We're given information on the culprit, details of the United States' immediate action, and perspective from a family member of a victim.

And when, over the course of 9 months, 14 American soldiers take their own lives? We get a brief. No story, just facts, and a couple quotes that just barely begin to tug at the heartstrings.

Yes, 14 people from one army base have killed themselves this year, but "hush, hush!" Because we can't have any cracks in the perfect facade of our fearless American army, fighting the "bad guys" overseas, the "bad guys" who want to fly our planes into buildings, the "bad guys" who open fire at Ft. Hood. Yes, our soldiers may be fighting huge battles of their own as they train to fight the bad guys, but they can figure it out for themselves. They'll get better, and there are still lots of other soldiers who aren't depressed and crazy.

Right?

No, I think Americans deserve to know about the sufferings of their compatriots, to hear their stories and the stories of their families, so they can-- we can-- help. The media just doesn't have the right to hide information from us, to tell us one tragic story in great detail but keep another, equally as tragic one hidden.

Hello!

Newspapers aren't just for relaying raw facts about the biggest current events. Rather, they can be used as media to tell stories of people and cultures that audiences may not know much about. I love journalism. I love to write, but more importantly at this stage in my life, I love reading good journalism. Since news is so all-inclusive, it's natural to make connections between what we talk about in my Glenbrook Academy English class and what is happening in the world.

As a senior in high school, I do my best to write good stories for our school's newspaper. I'm devoted to The Torch. And there's no better way for me to become a better writer than by reading the newspaper, and reading it often. The purpose of this blog is to give me an opportunity to carefully look at selected news stories, ideally making connections to our English curriculum.

I'm no critic, but I know when I like a story. My experience in journalism allows me to pick out elements of a story that make it good, and also to highlight what a particular story could be missing.

Recently in English, we've been looking at Genesis. In class, we've made note of the sexism that appears.

'This is now bone of my bones
And flesh of my flesh;
She shall be called Woman,
Because she was taken out of Man.' (Genesis 2:23)

To the woman He said:

'I will greatly multiply
your sorrow and your conception;
In pain you shall bring forth children;
Your desire shall be for your husband,
And he shall rule over you.' (Genesis 3:16)

Such passages illustrate the patriarchy set up in the Bible (and the Torah and the Qur'an, for that matter). Islamic patriarchy brings me to a news story I read recently in the New York Times.

This story was truly shocking to me. While I knew about the female obligation to wear the burqa, I didn't realize how truly discriminated against women are in everyday life in Afghanistan, and probably other Muslim countries as well. Little girls are forfeiting a huge part of their identity--their gender--because their society, and even their families, are so ashamed of them. While in America we can say, for the most part, that much gender discrimination has ceased, clearly the situation in Afghanistan is very different. The article highlights a part of Afghanistan that most readers were probably completely ignorant about before reading.

The writer Jenny Nordberg does a superb job painting a picture of what life is like for these gender-confused children and young adults. However, a little more background may have been helpful. As a reader who knows a little bit about the strictness of Islam, I was somewhat confused about the origin of the society's discrimination against women. The article says that wealth and a family name is passed down through sons, but that doesn't fully explain why outsiders frown down upon little girls in general. It may have been helpful to have the perspective of an Afghan man (or woman, for that matter) who is convinced of the inferiority of women. While I was fully able to get the impression that women are valued far, far less than men, it would have been nice to have a clearer idea of why.

That said, Nordberg's story is excellent. She doesn't make the Afghan people seem like freaks; rather, she successfully illustrates many of the differences in their culture that can help explain why girls are living as boys.

It is a commonly held belief among less educated Afghans that the mother can determine the sex of her unborn child, so she is blamed if she gives birth to a daughter. Several Afghan doctors and health care workers from around the country said that they had witnessed the despair of women when they gave birth to daughters, and that the pressure to produce a son fueled the practice.

In just these two sentences, Nordberg powerfully demonstrates how very different life in Afghanistan is from life in America. She also picks up on small things that make the article stronger.

“He is very naughty,” Mrs. Rafaat said in English with a sigh, of Mehran, mixing up the gender-specific pronoun, which does not exist in Dari. “My daughter adopted all the boys’ traits very soon. You’ve seen her — the attitude, the talking — she has nothing of a girl in her.”

Rather than using a bracketed "She" in the place of "he", Nordberg seizes on the cultural difference to add to her story and greatly strengthen the point of the article.

This article proves that news doesn't have to be boring. It's about telling stories, just as Nordberg has done so well.