My research began with the actual physical newspaper of the New York Times (NYT). My partner's mom is one of the 1 million strong subscribers keeping the Times up and running (Hanson 201). Last night I was looking for an article that I could match in other newspapers on the net for the second assignment. I wanted it to be in the international section, to find the news in a Hungarian paper as well. Media coverage about American pop stars would probably not be any significant news there. So as I turned to the international section I found a piece on the U.S wanting to mediate China's ambitions to extract more resources from the South China Sea. That seemed interesting because of the posturing between these two world powers. However, I could not find this news on USA Today. This is quite interesting. Since both newspapers considered major news sources, I expected both to cover a story that could potentially harm relationships between China and U.S.; but this was not the case. Perhaps it points back to the fact that the two papers have different histories and focus (Hanson 199).
I needed another article that is in the USA Today as well as in others. As I was looking for the Chinese reference, there was another story popping up on the web: “N. Korea Vows Nuclear Response to Drills” - said the Times. My first reaction was to think about oil drills, recent oil spills, and then, how is this related to North Korea? I found the same article in the USA Today; that seemed a promising sign. At this point I was aiming for similar headlines only. But I still wasn't aware what the story was about. I needed to find the same story on BBC News. As I brought up the web site of BBC and typed in North Korea, I got an article that I almost overlooked because it said: “S Korea-US military exercise begins in the Sea of Japan”. I thought, yes the general area is ok, but this is not about oil, but rather military stuff, and not with the North but with the South Koreans. I tried again with the search and then it dawned on me – it is the same thing! Drill also means army training. This started to build up to an exciting experiment. I thought about how one of Pulitzer's innovations changed the newspaper forever by applying “a subject and an active verb” in the headlines (Hanson 191).
The BBC, reporting hours ahead of the US papers, reported on the exercises beginning instead of the threat of the previous day. So their headline is different. Luckily I found this same article in the Guardian, a British, and in Nepszabadsag, a Hungarian left leaning paper. Their headlines enriched the variety as well. The Guardian read - “North Korea threatens 'nuclear war' over troop exercises,” Nepszabadsag read - “Pyongyang condemns sanctions and military exercises”. Just looking at the headlines it seems that the NYT and USA Today's snappy headlines have misled at least one reader compared to the more explanatory ones; the word drill was completely lost on me. The Guardian chose the most dramatic line by mentioning nuclear war; The Hungarian paper seems to lessen the impact by leaving out the words 'North Korea,' which is becoming synonymous with the bogey man.
The pictures also tell a story. The NYT and USA Today had the same picture of a giant navy ship. This emphasizes the power of the U.S. The BBC News and Guardian had the ship in the background with more focus on the spectators in the foreground. This highlights the impact of military exercise on the people. The Hungarian paper had nothing to do with war items, but only a busy photo showing the spokesman for North Korean foreign minister dwarfed by the reporters' cameras and microphones advancing on him. This portrays the media’s attention to the story.
By further investigation of the articles, now printed out neatly side by side, I realized that the NYT and USA Today articles were exactly the same, word for word. Actually they printed the Associated Press's writings. Perhaps this points to the more concentrated ownership of mass media outlets. It brought up questions such as, why did these two major papers lack an article of their own reporting on a seemingly big event? Or, on the other hand, if they didn't have the story, why did they feel the need to print the one from Associated Press? What is the Associated Press; and why does it have so much power?
Concerning the content there are a lot of similarities between the papers. With the exception of the Hungarian paper all others mention repeatedly “the rising tension” (BBC), “amid increased tensions on the Korean peninsula” (Guardian), “the maneuvers underscore the rising tensions in the region” (NYT). This, to some degree, fits into the agenda-setting theory on media. By using dramatic language the media seems to give more importance to this news, and intends to persuade people to think more about this event. The western papers focus is overwhelming compared to the Hungarian paper, Nepszabadsag. They reported on this sporadically, with the last news from July 22. They are a small country with lower stakes in this event. The heavy use of dramatic language of war, nuclear power, supercarrier, and undetectable fighter jets also links to the psychological effects this news can evoke on the audience. The NYT writes: “A massive nuclear-powered U.S. supercarrier began maneuvers Sunday with ally South Korea in a potent show of force that North Korea has threatened could lead to 'sacred war'.” This serves as a source for fear, and also for a source for differentiating between the enemy, North Korea, and the good guys, the U.S. and the South Koreans. It is also an example for ethnocentrism that is prevalent in news coverage (Hanson 70).
The emphasis is different in the different papers. The Associated Press through NYT puts a lot more emphasis on a previous event, the sinking of a South Korean ship in March, as a cause of this military show. It reports that “Seoul and Washington say a North Korean torpedo was responsible for the March sinking of the Cheonan” and they must “punish [the North]” (NYT). Although they mention this incident a lot in the article, it does not connect much to the current story and it could be an example for failing to interest the audience at all. However, it is perfect excuse to boost the U.S.'s posturing for power in the region; and it is another example for ethnocentrism.
In contrast the BBC News writes: “An international investigation said a North Korean torpedo sank the ship,” pulling focus away from the U.S. as accuser. In addition, the BBC and the Guardian quote from North Korean sources characterizing the U.S. navy exercise as “another sign of US 'hostility',” and “US imperialists and the South Korean puppet forces”. Such criticism is missing from the AP article in NYT and USA Today. Nepszabadsag wrote the shortest commentary, somewhat critical of the U.S. This is evident in that they only quoted the North Korean official, without presenting any of the western views on the issue.
As mentioned earlier the NYT and USA Today printed an Associated Press article. But only the Times mention an AP reporter who contributed. The BBC News article does not list the writer, but quotes from one of their reporters. Nepszabadsag has no reporter assigned either, but cites Reuters under the photo they show. Only the Guardian names two reporters writing their story. Theirs was one of the longer and more detailed versions of the story.
This exercise was extremely fun and informative. The aspects that I found comparing the papers made me more aware of the kind of focus, language, and importance they try to convey to the reader. In a way it made me more interested, because the story seems so pervasive across these papers, but it also made me a little skeptical of the danger they try to enforce on my senses. Some of the language component seems even comical, as the examples of avoiding negative adjectives near the word ‘U.S.’ shows, or the British commentators' choice of quotes doing the exact opposite. This exercise also proves truth one: the media are essential components of our lives; I got a piece of news that is happening far away yet I read it, analyzed it in my home, and report on it for my assignment.
I needed another article that is in the USA Today as well as in others. As I was looking for the Chinese reference, there was another story popping up on the web: “N. Korea Vows Nuclear Response to Drills” - said the Times. My first reaction was to think about oil drills, recent oil spills, and then, how is this related to North Korea? I found the same article in the USA Today; that seemed a promising sign. At this point I was aiming for similar headlines only. But I still wasn't aware what the story was about. I needed to find the same story on BBC News. As I brought up the web site of BBC and typed in North Korea, I got an article that I almost overlooked because it said: “S Korea-US military exercise begins in the Sea of Japan”. I thought, yes the general area is ok, but this is not about oil, but rather military stuff, and not with the North but with the South Koreans. I tried again with the search and then it dawned on me – it is the same thing! Drill also means army training. This started to build up to an exciting experiment. I thought about how one of Pulitzer's innovations changed the newspaper forever by applying “a subject and an active verb” in the headlines (Hanson 191).
The BBC, reporting hours ahead of the US papers, reported on the exercises beginning instead of the threat of the previous day. So their headline is different. Luckily I found this same article in the Guardian, a British, and in Nepszabadsag, a Hungarian left leaning paper. Their headlines enriched the variety as well. The Guardian read - “North Korea threatens 'nuclear war' over troop exercises,” Nepszabadsag read - “Pyongyang condemns sanctions and military exercises”. Just looking at the headlines it seems that the NYT and USA Today's snappy headlines have misled at least one reader compared to the more explanatory ones; the word drill was completely lost on me. The Guardian chose the most dramatic line by mentioning nuclear war; The Hungarian paper seems to lessen the impact by leaving out the words 'North Korea,' which is becoming synonymous with the bogey man.
The pictures also tell a story. The NYT and USA Today had the same picture of a giant navy ship. This emphasizes the power of the U.S. The BBC News and Guardian had the ship in the background with more focus on the spectators in the foreground. This highlights the impact of military exercise on the people. The Hungarian paper had nothing to do with war items, but only a busy photo showing the spokesman for North Korean foreign minister dwarfed by the reporters' cameras and microphones advancing on him. This portrays the media’s attention to the story.
By further investigation of the articles, now printed out neatly side by side, I realized that the NYT and USA Today articles were exactly the same, word for word. Actually they printed the Associated Press's writings. Perhaps this points to the more concentrated ownership of mass media outlets. It brought up questions such as, why did these two major papers lack an article of their own reporting on a seemingly big event? Or, on the other hand, if they didn't have the story, why did they feel the need to print the one from Associated Press? What is the Associated Press; and why does it have so much power?
Concerning the content there are a lot of similarities between the papers. With the exception of the Hungarian paper all others mention repeatedly “the rising tension” (BBC), “amid increased tensions on the Korean peninsula” (Guardian), “the maneuvers underscore the rising tensions in the region” (NYT). This, to some degree, fits into the agenda-setting theory on media. By using dramatic language the media seems to give more importance to this news, and intends to persuade people to think more about this event. The western papers focus is overwhelming compared to the Hungarian paper, Nepszabadsag. They reported on this sporadically, with the last news from July 22. They are a small country with lower stakes in this event. The heavy use of dramatic language of war, nuclear power, supercarrier, and undetectable fighter jets also links to the psychological effects this news can evoke on the audience. The NYT writes: “A massive nuclear-powered U.S. supercarrier began maneuvers Sunday with ally South Korea in a potent show of force that North Korea has threatened could lead to 'sacred war'.” This serves as a source for fear, and also for a source for differentiating between the enemy, North Korea, and the good guys, the U.S. and the South Koreans. It is also an example for ethnocentrism that is prevalent in news coverage (Hanson 70).
The emphasis is different in the different papers. The Associated Press through NYT puts a lot more emphasis on a previous event, the sinking of a South Korean ship in March, as a cause of this military show. It reports that “Seoul and Washington say a North Korean torpedo was responsible for the March sinking of the Cheonan” and they must “punish [the North]” (NYT). Although they mention this incident a lot in the article, it does not connect much to the current story and it could be an example for failing to interest the audience at all. However, it is perfect excuse to boost the U.S.'s posturing for power in the region; and it is another example for ethnocentrism.
In contrast the BBC News writes: “An international investigation said a North Korean torpedo sank the ship,” pulling focus away from the U.S. as accuser. In addition, the BBC and the Guardian quote from North Korean sources characterizing the U.S. navy exercise as “another sign of US 'hostility',” and “US imperialists and the South Korean puppet forces”. Such criticism is missing from the AP article in NYT and USA Today. Nepszabadsag wrote the shortest commentary, somewhat critical of the U.S. This is evident in that they only quoted the North Korean official, without presenting any of the western views on the issue.
As mentioned earlier the NYT and USA Today printed an Associated Press article. But only the Times mention an AP reporter who contributed. The BBC News article does not list the writer, but quotes from one of their reporters. Nepszabadsag has no reporter assigned either, but cites Reuters under the photo they show. Only the Guardian names two reporters writing their story. Theirs was one of the longer and more detailed versions of the story.
This exercise was extremely fun and informative. The aspects that I found comparing the papers made me more aware of the kind of focus, language, and importance they try to convey to the reader. In a way it made me more interested, because the story seems so pervasive across these papers, but it also made me a little skeptical of the danger they try to enforce on my senses. Some of the language component seems even comical, as the examples of avoiding negative adjectives near the word ‘U.S.’ shows, or the British commentators' choice of quotes doing the exact opposite. This exercise also proves truth one: the media are essential components of our lives; I got a piece of news that is happening far away yet I read it, analyzed it in my home, and report on it for my assignment.
Works Cited
Batty, David and Justin McCurry. “North Korea threatens 'nuclear war' over troop exercises.” Guardian 24 July 2010.
Batty, David and Justin McCurry. “North Korea threatens 'nuclear war' over troop exercises.” Guardian 24 July 2010.
Hanson, Ralph E. Mass Communication, Living in a Media World. Washington, DC: QC Press, 2011.
“N. Korea Vows Nuclear Response to Drills.” The New York Times 24 July 2010.
“N. Korea Vows Nuclear Response to Drills.” USA Today 24 July 2010.
“S Korea-US military exercise begins in the Sea of Japan.” BBC News 25 July 2010.
“Szankciokat es hadgyakorlatot itelt el Phenjan.” Nepszabadsag 22 July 2010.
Image from the Guardian website
No comments:
Post a Comment