One of the men involved in the Rwandan genocide was recently captured and is being tried at the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) in Arusha. Idelphonse Nizeyimana pleaded not guilty to the charges laid against him.
There are many reports on his capture and subsequent trial. The Al-Jazeera news site explains his trial in much detail, and gives background information about the genocide. It gives extra information that other sites do not give. It tells the reader about the $5 million bounty for his capture, and how he has been on the run for 15 years. This is important because it shows that the genocide criminals are being brought to justice. Although the process of bringing them before the courts has been slow, it encourages the victims to know that justice is being achieved for them. Al-Jazeera, however, reports that the tribunal can only hear appeals until 2010. This is puts it under pressure to search for the remaining criminals, so that they can be arraigned before the courts.
Other websites report the basics of the story, and add little or no background information like the BBC and Reuters. The most nonchalant of the reports I read was on Bloomberg. It was a very short report on the trial, which does not say a lot about Nizeyimana and about the genocide. It is as if they don’t care about the genocide and that criminals are still being brought to book about it.
The melting Arctic ice cap recently made headlines with the release of the extensive Catlin Arctic Survey and WWF (World Wildlife Fund) data ahead of the UN’s climate summit, finding that the ice is too thin to survive next summer’s melt season.
Image: Arctic ice photograph by Paul Nicklen
This news was reported differently from one publication to the next, ranging from “Arctic Largely Ice Free in Summer Within Ten Years” to “Arctic ice will be completely gone in 20 years” and several other reports with more vague headlines like “Arctic to be 'ice-free in summer'”
All the stories’ (I looked at) reliability lies in that authoritative (mainly on grounds of their histories) publications like BBC, AFP, National Georgrapic etc reported first hand on them, except for The Tech Herald. Most publications wrote informing pieces explaining the study and its findings in understandable terms to the average reader, while science publications went into greater scientific depth. The Tech Herald reported disappointingly little on the topic. In my opinion National Geographic was by far the best middle way read between a deeply scientific and a general explanation.
A flaw seems to occur with reference to “Wadhams said the results agreed… Recent changes in wind patterns in the Arctic have also contributed...,” as a reader would reason that “wind” itself is influenced by global warming – a possible reporter misunderstanding?
From all the reports it remains clear: Global warming is here and we urgently need solutions!
Reference: