Montana Newlywed Kills Husband
The next article I decided to compare is about the woman who killed her husband. I have found both articles in two separate sources to compare the written word of both. I always find it interesting to see how the author uses his first paragraph to engage his reader. Does he use just the facts or does he use shocking or overly expressive words to hook the reader?
In the WP, this is how the article started:
“A Montana woman was charged on Monday with killing her husband of eight days by pushing him off a cliff at Glacier National Park during an argument and after expressing doubts about the marriage, court records show.”
In the NY Daily News article, the author said this:
“A newlywed wife was charged Monday with killing her husband by pushing him off a cliff in Glacier National Park during an argument just a week after they got married.”
I think the WP did a better job in hooking the reader in. There are more details and there is also “proof” by indicating “court records show”. These three words add legitimacy to the article. I also like the exact number of days stated in the article rather than a broad expression of “just a week”.
Continuing on with comparing both articles, I notice right away that the NY version as several photos of the couple and has devoted a full page to the story. The author does not involve his emotions in this article, but instead just gives the facts. Compared to the WP version of this story, the NY article has many more facts which would conclude to me that this author did a little more research that the WP author.
The WP author makes his article quick and to the point probably knowing that while this is a little unusual for a newlywed it is still in fact a somewhat typical story of relationships/murder. The NY author seems to be more fascinated with this news story due to the amount of space he used to write his article. This implies to me that the NY author found this story more interesting than the WP author. However, they may not be the case at all. The NY author may have been told to dig up more facts and include photos or maybe he is just a better journalist.
I always like to see how the authors start and also conclude their stories.
The NY article states “Graham was interviewed July 16 and acknowledged lying about her husband’s death, authorities said.”
The WP concluded their article as follows “Graham’s federal public defender, Andy Nelson, could not be reached for comment after business hours on Monday.
These two different ways to end this article can be compared like so. The NY author decides to let the reader know that this has been an ongoing investigation as his conclusion. I found that interesting because I thought this was a very current situation. I like that the NY article provided me with a date because it adds validity to their article.
The WP article’s conclusion feels a little too loose. The words “could not be reached” fall into the same category as “unnamed source”. These loose facts can leave a reader feeling like the article may have lost some of its legitimacy