For the second homework assignments I decided to compare between the Newspapers an article about the death of a US - Mexico border agent which occurred last Thursday. what caught my attention was the way the article were covered.
In the USA TODAY the article stood out more and even had a picture of the killed border agent. It went more into detail and even went a step furthered and had quotes from actual officials. The NEW YORK TIMES in the other hand, was very short and brief. It didn't have any quotes or official statement's in its report. As well, I had trouble finding the article which had no photo and was 1/3 of the size. The BBC really surprised me being it wasn't an American based company and had more detail and pictures about the story. It had quotes , official statement's, a map of the border between the countries and even took it a step further, the actual reason for the shooting, not just the aftermath. The NEWSDAY just like THE NEWYORK TIMES, was very brief and short about distance national story.
The sources and coverage from the local metropolitan newspaper (Newsday , The New York Times), where the least from all of the news sources. They weren't very dense and seem more of a recap. while the national paper , the USA TODAY was more reportful I understand why since its supposed to touch base on all corners of the country. The biggest shocker as i stated before was the BBC. The international newspaper had the best coverage and yet wasn't as densful and long as the USA TODAY , it provided a broader angel of the story, which would be great for someone from another country to understand and comprehend.
How does the coverage compare? Contrast the articles in terms of slant, sources, density and focus.
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
Videos from TV Class
I Love Lucy "Vitameatavegamin":
Richard Nixon, Checkers Speech, 1952:
Trailer for Marlon Riggs' TONGUES UNTIED:
Montage of Public Access Television in Manhattan in the 1980s:
Trailer for Paper Tiger Reads Paper Tiger:
Richard Nixon, Checkers Speech, 1952:
Trailer for Marlon Riggs' TONGUES UNTIED:
Montage of Public Access Television in Manhattan in the 1980s:
Trailer for Paper Tiger Reads Paper Tiger:
Videos from Movies Class
Zoetrope:
Muybridge's racehorse photos as a movie:
Edison's Early Films
Man Sneezing:
Sandow the Strongman:
Princess Ali from the Midway:
[database of Edison Films, for those interested: http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/edhtml/edmvalpha.html ]
Workers Leaving the Lumiere Factory:
The Great Train Robbery:
http://www.archive.org/details/the-great-trainrobbery
Muybridge's racehorse photos as a movie:
Edison's Early Films
Man Sneezing:
Sandow the Strongman:
Princess Ali from the Midway:
[database of Edison Films, for those interested: http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/edhtml/edmvalpha.html ]
Workers Leaving the Lumiere Factory:
The Great Train Robbery:
http://www.archive.org/details/the-great-trainrobbery
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
Henry Louis Gates
The story i chose to research was about Henry Louis Gates Jr, who's house was broken into in Cambridge MA, and was arrested and some say it was a racial attack. This story was pretty big considering Obamas response and the racial issue.The New York Post was the first news paper i read the story from. In the Post online they had the full 911 recorded call wich was pretty interesting, concidering the 911 call or the fact someone broke into this mans appartment was not the head line of this story. The Post gave qoutes form the police officer and Obama saying it was "stupid" but i think they definatly were really highlighting the racial issue instead of the cold facts like the New York Times did. From reading the post to reading the times, the story got more detailed. The Times gave real facts and touched all issues from the debate of weather or not it was a raccial attack to Obamas responce.
The other newspaper i read was the BBC. I was confused after reading this becuase it said that Gates door had been jammed, wich is a detail that was not given from the other newspapers. There was a lot lacking in detail, and i feel really gave a twist to the story, and made it seem like racial profiling was common in the states.
The other newspaper i read was the BBC. I was confused after reading this becuase it said that Gates door had been jammed, wich is a detail that was not given from the other newspapers. There was a lot lacking in detail, and i feel really gave a twist to the story, and made it seem like racial profiling was common in the states.
most memorable media experience 9-11
When the 9/11 "bombings" of the World Trade Centers took place I was in 6th grade. I'll never forget sitting in my double period of English/Reading class with my teacher Mrs. Wood. We were about to take that weeks spelling test when the room phone rings and then Mrs. Wood lifts her eyebrows and says, "Hm, okay", and she hangs up the phone looks at me and tells me I am dismissed for the rest of the day. I found that really surprising and didn't question anything, I just grabbed my things and went down to the office. My mom was standing there in the midst of chaos. The principles and vice principles were all acting really weird but trying not to say too much because a student was present (me). I looked at my mom and asked her whats going on .. and she just sat there and said I'm waiting for Erin to get down here too, I'll tell you guys after we pick up Eric from school too. Eric is my little brother. Finally, Erin, my cousin got down to the office and looked almost as confused as I was. After we picked up my brother my mom started asking us if we knew what terrorism was and none of us really understood. So she remained quiet and drove us to Sandy Hook in NJ. I was always very familiar with NYC growing up because we used to go with friends out on their yachts and stay by Chelsea Piers. So when my mother got us to Sandy Hook the sky was filled with smoke. That's when she told us, the Twin Towers were purposely hit by suicide bombers. My heart imediately sank, I started crying a little then got control of myself. We went back to the house and I must have sat in front of the tv for 4 hours straight eating an entire bag of Wintergreen Mints. My cousin and I were so freaked out by the whole thing. We would watch both towers get hit and then see them collapse at least 5 times in 10 minutes. It was extremely tramatizing for my to watch and to this day, almost 7 years later i can still invision that image in my head like it was only yesterday.
Monday, July 27, 2009
French President Sarkozy Faints
I was browsing through the news online and found it quite funny that the main point of the article in the BBC news of the president of france fainting was the mere idea of jogging. The harms and risks that may occur with keeping on a strict diet plan and jogging a few times a week. I compared it to the Australian news and the description that they gave about the same exact article was an actual reference to the President and it spoke about his life style and much more about the actual president and what happened to him. BBC happened to be extremely extremley brief and more concerned about the harms and details about how to work out the right way and what to do before and after jogging so this won't happen to you. Meanwhile, the title of the article was talking about the president.
Who Cares About California?
Who Cares About California?
by Roxy Haji
One of the big news stories of the week was about how my home state, California, finally came to a “solution” for its enormous, 26.3 billion dollar (and growing and every day) deficit. After what seemed like forever, the Republicans and Democrats collectively agreed on a new budget deal to plug the state’s financial gap, leaving only The Governator to give his autograph before the new deal can be passed. I analyzed the reporting on this big story using four news sources, all of which had their articles online. The New York Times, BBC, USA Today and The Los Angeles Times had quite different ways of informing the public about the California budget deal.
The first article I read was from the BBC webpage. Its length was the first thing that caught my eye: it was rather short. But I wasn’t too surprised, considering news about California must not be of grave concern to people in a completely different country with completely different accents thousands of miles away.
Then I read the USA Today version and was shocked. Its article on California made the BBC’s article look like a PhD dissertation. It was two sentences. In fact, here it is:
“The California Assembly has approved a plan to close most of
a $26.3 billion deficit. The legislation now goes to Gov. Arnold
Schwarzenegger, who is expected to sign it.”
After reading USA Today’s report, if I can even call it that, I read The New York Times’ article. The New York Times was nice enough to devote a whole page to California’s crisis, but I did notice a cynical tone and felt more like someone with a slant was giving me the news, not an objective reporter. Words like “nebulous” and “oddities” found their way into the article in, what I thought, were inappropriate contexts.
The Los Angeles Times was the last paper I read and, of course, its report on its home state was much more detailed. And one would hope so. The article was very in-depth and very impartial. I couldn’t tell if the individual writing it was a Democrat or a Republican or was for the budget deal or not for the budget deal. All in all, it was informative and unbiased.
Rampant, Unprecedented Corruption; What part does ethnicity play, if any at all?
In the July 26, 2009 issue of the New York Times, an article about the 44 arrested NJ officials was published, where the main point of the article was to show how engrained corruption is into the system. The article points out that over the last decade, over 150 NJ officials have been arrested on corruption charges. This time it was three mayors and even one rabbi who were arrested.
The link to the NY Times article: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/27/nyregion/27jersey.html?_r=1&hp
An article published on the same topic in the ethnic Russian newspaper called "Novoye Russkoye Slovo" (The New Russian Word) also explains the facts in a fashion similar to the New York Times. When covering Tri-State Area news, this newspaper offers a very similar slant to the New York Times, as this is the same newspaper that I brought to class which translates New York Times articles into Russian.
The link to the article from the Russian newspaper:
http://www.nrs.com/news/front/usa/240709_203808_88373.html
I noticed two major differences in how the article was portrayed in the Russian news as opposed to the New York Times. First, this article made the front page of the Russian newspaper, while this was not the case with the New York Times. The reason for this, as far as I understand, is that many readers of the Russian newspaper come from the former Soviet Union which, as far as my parents told me, was horribly engrained with corruption. It is the opinion of many Russian people, like my parents, that while corruption does exist in the US (as pointed out in two articles), it is more possible to prosecute because the American criminal justice system is supposed to be less biased and less nepotistic than the Soviet one. Also, the Russian community generally tends to have a distasteful outlook on politicians who are caught pocketing their tax dollars, and for this reason sees political corruption as a very serious crime that is worthy of outrage and a front page article.
The other major difference that I noticed was that in the Russian article, it was mentioned very specifically that most of the public officials that were arrested for corruption were of Syrian-Jewish decent. While the New York Times does try to be as ethnically neutral as possible (especially when the article pertains to a legal case), the Russian ethnic press is very preoccupied with ethnicity. This is perhaps because in the Soviet Union, one's ethnicity was listed in the one's passport - making it a lot easier to ethnically differentiate people. I guess this is what is the most responsible for such an ethnically-differentiated outlook on society by many Soviet expatriots.
The link to the NY Times article: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/27/nyregion/27jersey.html?_r=1&hp
An article published on the same topic in the ethnic Russian newspaper called "Novoye Russkoye Slovo" (The New Russian Word) also explains the facts in a fashion similar to the New York Times. When covering Tri-State Area news, this newspaper offers a very similar slant to the New York Times, as this is the same newspaper that I brought to class which translates New York Times articles into Russian.
The link to the article from the Russian newspaper:
http://www.nrs.com/news/front/usa/240709_203808_88373.html
I noticed two major differences in how the article was portrayed in the Russian news as opposed to the New York Times. First, this article made the front page of the Russian newspaper, while this was not the case with the New York Times. The reason for this, as far as I understand, is that many readers of the Russian newspaper come from the former Soviet Union which, as far as my parents told me, was horribly engrained with corruption. It is the opinion of many Russian people, like my parents, that while corruption does exist in the US (as pointed out in two articles), it is more possible to prosecute because the American criminal justice system is supposed to be less biased and less nepotistic than the Soviet one. Also, the Russian community generally tends to have a distasteful outlook on politicians who are caught pocketing their tax dollars, and for this reason sees political corruption as a very serious crime that is worthy of outrage and a front page article.
The other major difference that I noticed was that in the Russian article, it was mentioned very specifically that most of the public officials that were arrested for corruption were of Syrian-Jewish decent. While the New York Times does try to be as ethnically neutral as possible (especially when the article pertains to a legal case), the Russian ethnic press is very preoccupied with ethnicity. This is perhaps because in the Soviet Union, one's ethnicity was listed in the one's passport - making it a lot easier to ethnically differentiate people. I guess this is what is the most responsible for such an ethnically-differentiated outlook on society by many Soviet expatriots.
Read All Over
The turbulence, protests and accusations of voter fraud in Iran have been extensively covered in the news for the past week. Each source, the New York Times, BBC News, USA Today and the China Post, had multiple articles on the escalating instability in the country. In the Sunday Times an article about immoral practices against protester had under the fold mention in a boxed synopsis. The article focuses on an open letter that both undermines Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s election victory and called out the vicious psychological and physical abuse of protesters. While the Times focuses on the violation of civil rights, the BBC looks at how Mir Hossein Mousavi will move forward after the potentially fraudulent election. The final four paragraphs, which are brief, discuss the cause of the protests. There is a very vague mention of the physical abuses suffered by arrested protesters; they merely point out the twenty deaths that occurred at the beginning of the protests. The BBC attempts to put the situation into a positive context where Mir Hossein Mousavi expresses his desire to give the current opposition a legal backing rather than challenging the system as a whole. The Times coverage goes more in depth in it’s focus, but a common thread between BBC and the China Post is Mousavi’s wife talking about her brother’s detainment. The source is the same, but the BBC uses the singular reference to the arrest. The China Post goes farther with her perspective on the situation as the focus of the article, specifically her anger at the militarized response. Mousavi is also quoted in the China Post, but unlike the BBC paraphrase, it is direct and certainly not put into a positive context. The China Post gives a unique view in using Zahra Rahnavard, Mousavi’s wife, as the main source because she is closely attached to the events by way of her marriage. While the protesters’ opinion sourced in the Times and USA Today are important, their role is from an outside perspective, not as a person who bore the direct affront in the hypothesized fraud. This is not to say that the proceeding election did not affect them, the ensuing protest proves that, rather that an official’s perspective provides greater significance to the reader. USA Today and the Times synonymously use Human Rights leaders as sources throughout their articles. All three, unlike the BBC, give longer accounts with more in-depth coverage on the outcome of June 12th. However, USA Today is similar to the BBC in that the coverage is meant to be more hopeful as opposed to strictly exploring the abuses of power. USA Today looks at the global response to the protests and the international unity evoked by the election’s outcome. In looking at these four accounts the reader has to consider the question: which aspect is more important for me to consider? By reading the parallel accounts, the reader becomes better suited to judge the causality and therefore see the importance of a worldwide effort to support the protests of Iran. The gravity of the events as a whole calls for more than a singular source and makes objectivity difficult to judge. This isn’t true in all circumstances; a report on who won Saturday’s Yankees game leaves no room for subjectivity. However, the reader who is looking to be fully informed should do so by utilizing multiple news sources for reasons expressed throughout.
Arrest of prominent professor blows up in officer's face
Henry Louis Gates Jr. is a well-renowned professor at Harvard University. After returning home from a trip he found that his front door was jammed (possibly from someone else as there had been recent break-ins in the area) and so he employed his driver from the airport to help him pry open the door. A woman happened to see these two men trying to gain access to the apartment, and called the police to report a possible break-in. After the police showed up, Gates ended his night by being hauled off in handcuffs for disorderly conduct and the resulting media circus and accusations of racism by the Cambridge Police Dept have come out of the woodwork.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/27/us/27gates.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&hp
The NY Times had a 3 page article detailing the arrest, including the 911 phone call where apparently the woman did not factor in race, and did not state that there were two black men trying to break in to an apartment. It was a very well-written article showing both views of the professor and of the arresting police officer.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2009-07-26-obama_N.htm
The Media Circus raged on for days, and it seemed that everyone had an opinion on the matter. Even President Obama chimed in, stating that the Cambridge Police acted stupidly in arrested Professor Gates, a friend of his. USA Today had an article about how this incident and all of the subsequent media reports surrounding it would be a good way to get a conversation going about race, and racial profiling in America.
http://newsday.com/news/nation/cambridge-police-race-not-mentioned-in-911-call-1.1328978
There was an article in Newsday that mentions how race was not a factor at all in the arrest of Gates. "Lucia Whalen placed the 911 call July 16, saying she saw two men on Gates' front porch who appeared to be trying to force open the front door." Apparently she was trying to be a good citizen by reporting the break-in as she was aware of recent ones in the area.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8166278.stm
By far the most interesting article I read regarding this issue was by the BBC. Oh the good ol' BBC, always giving us articles that seem to really delve into the story. They were perhaps the only article I read that gave us a history of racial profiling in the US. In their story, they highlight why the arrest was such a big deal. They also talked about the Rodney King incident in the early 1990s which ended up leading to race riots in Los Angeles.
I wasn't there when the police showed up, but I do believe that the police were initially responding to a call about a break-in to an apartment and that their intentions were good. That being said, after producing his ID and proving that this was his apartment, the police had no right to arrest him. I'm sorry but the last time I checked you can say FUCK YOU to a police officer and not be arrested for disorderly conduct. I understand and I would be angered too if I was being arrested for breaking into my own house. Should Professor Gates have not been rowdy? Maybe. But it was his own house and he was obviously getting more and more annoyed when the officers would not tell them their names or badge numbers. You have every right to know a police officer's name and their badge number. I know too many people who have been threatened with arrest for merely not having an ID or talking back to an officer. This is not a police state the last time I checked. The police are employed to protect and to serve the people. In my neighborhood of Bushwick, Brooklyn I can't even count how many times I've seen people, stopped on the street simply walking about their day and thrown into the back of a police van. Racial profiling is still a big problem in the United States today, and hopefully there can only be positive things that come from this incident. Like President Obama said, there will hopefully be an opportunity for a national dialogue on race.
Read all over Palin resigns
Sarah Palin resigned as governor of Alaska today. Her resignation was covered by the four news sources I have chosen, the BBC, the New York Times, USA Today and the Juneau Empire. The reports had many similarities as they all used the same source for their information and covered most of the same facts, but there were differences in the scope, slight variations of focus, and major differences in length of the articles. In one instance, the factual information in two papers conflicted.
Mainly, the papers reported very similar stories. They all covered her resignation and saay what this means for her career and what her future plans are. They all speculate she may go into television or radio show broadcsting and possibly make a run for President in the next election. All three U.S. newspapers used the Associated Press as their source of information, therefore much of the content and most of the facts were the same in all articles. Even the BBC reported most of the AP content.
While the four news sources were reporting on the exaxct same event and using the same source (AP), there were many differences in the articles. There were differences in scope, focus, the time of reporting, and minor differences in emphasis and information in the articles. In one instance, the same fact relative to time remaining in Palin's term was reported differently by the BBC and NY Times.
There was a difference in focus between the papers even though each used the AP as a source. USA today seemed to be more concerned on where her future career was going. The BBC seemed to be a little more shocked that she had actually quit and focused on reasons why. The New York Times didn't initially report much more than a few basic facts which showed they had little interest in the topic. The Juneau Empire, as expected, had a more "close to home" approach and focused more on the impact her leaving will have on the community.
As far as publication timing is concerned, the BBC had a in depth coverage posted very early following the breaking of the news. The New York Times was later in reporting and at first only had a small blurb on the fact and a link to the AP. They later updated the story with the exact same wording as published by USA Today from the AP. On the otherhand, Juneau Empire included not only AP releases but added extensive coverage from local reporters. The Juneau coverage was very thorough.
I was somewhat suprised that the BBC, being a foriegn source, had such in depth coverage. I was also surprised that the New York Times was somewhat late with their coverage.
In conclusion, the articles all had slightly different focuses, slants, and depth of coverage, but they were more similar than dissimilar. I find it very interesting that people often read papers that they are comfortable with for news, when many of the papers go straight to the Associated Press and repost the words almost verbatim. I thought newspapers were much more independent and had no idea the AP had that much influence on what they say in terms of both content and exact phrasing.
Mainly, the papers reported very similar stories. They all covered her resignation and saay what this means for her career and what her future plans are. They all speculate she may go into television or radio show broadcsting and possibly make a run for President in the next election. All three U.S. newspapers used the Associated Press as their source of information, therefore much of the content and most of the facts were the same in all articles. Even the BBC reported most of the AP content.
While the four news sources were reporting on the exaxct same event and using the same source (AP), there were many differences in the articles. There were differences in scope, focus, the time of reporting, and minor differences in emphasis and information in the articles. In one instance, the same fact relative to time remaining in Palin's term was reported differently by the BBC and NY Times.
There was a difference in focus between the papers even though each used the AP as a source. USA today seemed to be more concerned on where her future career was going. The BBC seemed to be a little more shocked that she had actually quit and focused on reasons why. The New York Times didn't initially report much more than a few basic facts which showed they had little interest in the topic. The Juneau Empire, as expected, had a more "close to home" approach and focused more on the impact her leaving will have on the community.
As far as publication timing is concerned, the BBC had a in depth coverage posted very early following the breaking of the news. The New York Times was later in reporting and at first only had a small blurb on the fact and a link to the AP. They later updated the story with the exact same wording as published by USA Today from the AP. On the otherhand, Juneau Empire included not only AP releases but added extensive coverage from local reporters. The Juneau coverage was very thorough.
I was somewhat suprised that the BBC, being a foriegn source, had such in depth coverage. I was also surprised that the New York Times was somewhat late with their coverage.
In conclusion, the articles all had slightly different focuses, slants, and depth of coverage, but they were more similar than dissimilar. I find it very interesting that people often read papers that they are comfortable with for news, when many of the papers go straight to the Associated Press and repost the words almost verbatim. I thought newspapers were much more independent and had no idea the AP had that much influence on what they say in terms of both content and exact phrasing.
More Of The Same From "The Soprano State"
The excitement of classic stories of New Jersey's history of corruption has been challenged by a new extreme addition to the canon. In the past week, over forty individuals, including New Jersey public officials and rabbis, have been arrested in connection with a two-part, large-scale, international money laundering ring. The arrests come after a ten-year probe of the activities of the groups involved.
Coverage of this sweep has been widespread, the activities of members of this state reaching news outlets around the world. As this story is one that is full of detail, it is often very easy to see what is emphasized and what is essentially ignored in an account. Though they all tell the same general story, the New York Times, USA Today, BBC News, and The Australian accounts are very interesting in their differences.
The New York Times provides a concerned outlook on the situation in which this case has placed New Jersey residents. It goes beyond stating that this case reinforces stereotypes surrounding New Jersey and corruption; the Times article expresses concern for the people that are surrounded by this culture of corruption. The Times article continues with a large amount of detail regarding the development of the case. Throughout the article, plenty of incriminating quotes are provided for the reader; however, quotes from the accused parties, claiming their innocence, are also present. This account seems to put little energy into attacking the accused parties, placing more energy on the feeling of this being a sad time for New Jersey.
The USA Today account provides significantly less quotes of self-defense from the accused parties. This account also stands out in its emphasis on the political party affiliation of the arrested public officials, and other relevant individuals as well. Though it is stated consistently in all reports that this case involves two distinct sectors with a connecting individual, the USA Today seems to focus on only the political implications of this incident.
BBC News provides a very straightforward account of the corruption case. There is much less history presented than in the Times article, and there is much less mentioned regarding more specific political implications of this case. What is present is a very unsympathetic emphasis on the culture of corruption that clearly remains in New Jersey. Most of the quoted text of this article addresses the fact that corruption is rampant in the state government; little note is given, however, to the social implications of such a presence of corruption.
Interestingly, The Australian provides the most well-rounded account, though at the risk of possibly lacking in detail. The account provided includes the general overtone of disappointment in corruption, while showing a bit of the social concern seen in the Times, and the political emphasis seen in the USA Today account. The Australian also rounds out its article with a small description of public reaction, implying overall support for the crackdown.
Though The Australian seems to provide all of the lenses that I would like to view this story though, its account feels like it was a bit lacking in details from each area of focus. Though an impartial news seems to be what most consumers desire, the value of a somewhat biased news source, that will go into extensive detail of one aspect of a story, cannot be denied. By collecting information from several biased sources, one may gather much more information than would be practical to provide in one impartial source.
Coverage of this sweep has been widespread, the activities of members of this state reaching news outlets around the world. As this story is one that is full of detail, it is often very easy to see what is emphasized and what is essentially ignored in an account. Though they all tell the same general story, the New York Times, USA Today, BBC News, and The Australian accounts are very interesting in their differences.
The New York Times provides a concerned outlook on the situation in which this case has placed New Jersey residents. It goes beyond stating that this case reinforces stereotypes surrounding New Jersey and corruption; the Times article expresses concern for the people that are surrounded by this culture of corruption. The Times article continues with a large amount of detail regarding the development of the case. Throughout the article, plenty of incriminating quotes are provided for the reader; however, quotes from the accused parties, claiming their innocence, are also present. This account seems to put little energy into attacking the accused parties, placing more energy on the feeling of this being a sad time for New Jersey.
The USA Today account provides significantly less quotes of self-defense from the accused parties. This account also stands out in its emphasis on the political party affiliation of the arrested public officials, and other relevant individuals as well. Though it is stated consistently in all reports that this case involves two distinct sectors with a connecting individual, the USA Today seems to focus on only the political implications of this incident.
BBC News provides a very straightforward account of the corruption case. There is much less history presented than in the Times article, and there is much less mentioned regarding more specific political implications of this case. What is present is a very unsympathetic emphasis on the culture of corruption that clearly remains in New Jersey. Most of the quoted text of this article addresses the fact that corruption is rampant in the state government; little note is given, however, to the social implications of such a presence of corruption.
Interestingly, The Australian provides the most well-rounded account, though at the risk of possibly lacking in detail. The account provided includes the general overtone of disappointment in corruption, while showing a bit of the social concern seen in the Times, and the political emphasis seen in the USA Today account. The Australian also rounds out its article with a small description of public reaction, implying overall support for the crackdown.
Though The Australian seems to provide all of the lenses that I would like to view this story though, its account feels like it was a bit lacking in details from each area of focus. Though an impartial news seems to be what most consumers desire, the value of a somewhat biased news source, that will go into extensive detail of one aspect of a story, cannot be denied. By collecting information from several biased sources, one may gather much more information than would be practical to provide in one impartial source.
Read All Over about the NJ corruption
I was looking at the New Jersey Corruption this past week. I first found about this in the New York Times, and checked at other sources as well.
First of all, the New York Times was focusing on the fact, and the article had so many pages. I did not feel the article was biased or written with the strong feeling about this matter. It is more like showing the fact and summarizing what police investigation says about this matter.
Then, I read the same article in USA today. It had facts as well but not so detailed as NY Times. Also I felt it was more targeting the opinion of the people who live in the town, or the people's attitude and feeling about this matter more than the actual event that happened.
I found NY Post interesting. They only had a big picture of a rabbi and very simplified fact and they focused on the exact words that rabbi used to imply the "cash" in Hebrew. Other than that trivial information, they did not focus on the news as much as the other sources.
Then, I've read BBC news. I got the sense that it was the shortest and a little oversimplified. For example, other source clearly said 44people were arrested, but only BBC said more than 44 people arrested. Maybe it was because they were not sure about the number at the time, but there weren't updated news about this. On the other hand, I would say this source is the most non-biased article out of all the sources that I've read.
I tried to find the ethnic press, but I was not able to find one. Since corruption is not a surprising event in our long history, this may not be the hottest topic in foreign countries. I also noticed that each news source has its target and particular readers. So their advertisements showing up to the margins of the news are also interesting. When a certain word is searched, the add also correspond with the searched word.
NY Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/24/nyregion/24jersey.html?scp=1&sq=nj%20corruption&st=cse
USA Today
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-07-23-nj-corruption-probe_N.htm
BBC
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8165607.stm
NY Post
http://www.nypost.com/seven/07252009/news/regionalnews/the_talmudic_traitor_rabbis_181314.htm
First of all, the New York Times was focusing on the fact, and the article had so many pages. I did not feel the article was biased or written with the strong feeling about this matter. It is more like showing the fact and summarizing what police investigation says about this matter.
Then, I read the same article in USA today. It had facts as well but not so detailed as NY Times. Also I felt it was more targeting the opinion of the people who live in the town, or the people's attitude and feeling about this matter more than the actual event that happened.
I found NY Post interesting. They only had a big picture of a rabbi and very simplified fact and they focused on the exact words that rabbi used to imply the "cash" in Hebrew. Other than that trivial information, they did not focus on the news as much as the other sources.
Then, I've read BBC news. I got the sense that it was the shortest and a little oversimplified. For example, other source clearly said 44people were arrested, but only BBC said more than 44 people arrested. Maybe it was because they were not sure about the number at the time, but there weren't updated news about this. On the other hand, I would say this source is the most non-biased article out of all the sources that I've read.
I tried to find the ethnic press, but I was not able to find one. Since corruption is not a surprising event in our long history, this may not be the hottest topic in foreign countries. I also noticed that each news source has its target and particular readers. So their advertisements showing up to the margins of the news are also interesting. When a certain word is searched, the add also correspond with the searched word.
NY Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/24/nyregion/24jersey.html?scp=1&sq=nj%20corruption&st=cse
USA Today
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-07-23-nj-corruption-probe_N.htm
BBC
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8165607.stm
NY Post
http://www.nypost.com/seven/07252009/news/regionalnews/the_talmudic_traitor_rabbis_181314.htm
Henry Louis Gates, Jr.
Michael Kim
A little over a week ago, President had his first racial controversy since he stepped into office through his commenting on the Henry Louis Gates' arrest. The whole situation grew to this big mess within hours after he commented that the police 'acted stupidly' in that situation. That the issue of race having to do with a lot of the arrests was still disproportionately prominent. The President's comment offended many police officers around the country that Mr. Obama's comments make their job harder than it is. That the officers would have to be mindful with every action they make, especially to minorities.
After much unwanted publicity, President Obama addressed the press briefly expanding what he meant and individually called both Professor Gates and Sgt. Crowley to talk it through over a cold beer.
So, The New York Times really went in-depth to the whole to story from beginning to the most recent information. The article described (in greater detail than other news) the arresting of Professor Gates to the President's comment and why he would have said those things to how the President called both people that were involved to talk it over. I felt the article was unbiased to a certain side, but simply explained the whole situation based on facts.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/25/us/politics/25gates.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1
USA Today's article was really focused on the police force as a whole (Cambridge & the nation). It explained the side of the officers on how they felt that President Obama was "way off base" commenting without knowing the full details. The article was relatively short, but it was all about how the police department felt a little hurt by Mr. Obama's comment, but they have to do what they have to do and not be discouraged of what they need to do.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-07-23-cops-reaction_N.htm
The BBC focused on Professor Gates and the topic of Racial Profiling. That this has been and is a problem even now and it focused on how the President was always focused on eliminating "Racial Profiling." The article was written for the point of view of the receiving end of Racial Profiling. It really helped me feel what most minorities feel when they are disproportionately "accused" for a crime and angered how it hasn't been completely eliminated even at this day of age.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8166278.stm
The Daily News was a very 'light' article to read in the sense that it did not focus on the heavy controversial situation, but on the brighter topic of how they (President Obama, Prof Gates, & Sgt Crowley) are trying to personally meet each other to talk it over and move on. It gave me a sense of relief that they are on the right track to help bind the wounds of racial profiling that is such a deep past-time scar, which we should take note of and strive to do.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/2009/07/25/2009-07-25_harvard_professor_.html
A little over a week ago, President had his first racial controversy since he stepped into office through his commenting on the Henry Louis Gates' arrest. The whole situation grew to this big mess within hours after he commented that the police 'acted stupidly' in that situation. That the issue of race having to do with a lot of the arrests was still disproportionately prominent. The President's comment offended many police officers around the country that Mr. Obama's comments make their job harder than it is. That the officers would have to be mindful with every action they make, especially to minorities.
After much unwanted publicity, President Obama addressed the press briefly expanding what he meant and individually called both Professor Gates and Sgt. Crowley to talk it through over a cold beer.
So, The New York Times really went in-depth to the whole to story from beginning to the most recent information. The article described (in greater detail than other news) the arresting of Professor Gates to the President's comment and why he would have said those things to how the President called both people that were involved to talk it over. I felt the article was unbiased to a certain side, but simply explained the whole situation based on facts.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/25/us/politics/25gates.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1
USA Today's article was really focused on the police force as a whole (Cambridge & the nation). It explained the side of the officers on how they felt that President Obama was "way off base" commenting without knowing the full details. The article was relatively short, but it was all about how the police department felt a little hurt by Mr. Obama's comment, but they have to do what they have to do and not be discouraged of what they need to do.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-07-23-cops-reaction_N.htm
The BBC focused on Professor Gates and the topic of Racial Profiling. That this has been and is a problem even now and it focused on how the President was always focused on eliminating "Racial Profiling." The article was written for the point of view of the receiving end of Racial Profiling. It really helped me feel what most minorities feel when they are disproportionately "accused" for a crime and angered how it hasn't been completely eliminated even at this day of age.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8166278.stm
The Daily News was a very 'light' article to read in the sense that it did not focus on the heavy controversial situation, but on the brighter topic of how they (President Obama, Prof Gates, & Sgt Crowley) are trying to personally meet each other to talk it over and move on. It gave me a sense of relief that they are on the right track to help bind the wounds of racial profiling that is such a deep past-time scar, which we should take note of and strive to do.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/2009/07/25/2009-07-25_harvard_professor_.html
Sunday, July 26, 2009
about it case of Henry Louis Gates Jr.
Lately, the issue of arrest of Louis Gates, Jr. covered all the major headlines. The story was basely about a Harvard scholar of African-American research arrested by a police by changed refusing to calm down after Crowley demanded him to show his ID and after he proved he lived there. The case has bought the one of the most sensitive issues, and catches the attention of almost all the attention of the major news paper.
BBS News:
“Harvard row highlights US tension”, By Max Deveson. The article starts with a quotation from president Obama, which declares there are still racial issues in today’s America. The tone of the author is pbuiously bias in Hery Louis Gates Jr. and the police action against him is pure folly. In addition, the author cites examples of the past to prove his point of view.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8166278.stm
USA Today:
“Obama remark on Gates' arrest angers cops” The article pointes out that their criticism of the president Obama led to the widespread dissatisfaction with the police officers across the country. They appeal that before any judgment has been made, get all the facts first. The artic points out, Hery Louis Gates Jr. was arrested because of racial bias and refused to calm down after Crowley demanded him to show his ID and after he proved he lived there.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-07-23-cops-reaction_N.htm
The New York Times:
“Obama Shifts Tone on Gates After Mulling Debate”. It points out that Harvard University professor gates was mistakenly arrested by police led to a heated race debate, president Obama has also been involved into the vortex. After that, president Obama praised the police officer Crowley was a good man, and invited him and Gates to White House and have some beer and talk. Hoping calm this storm as soon as possible. Obama believes that the based on what he has heard, both side have overreacted. The article also pointed out, Sgt. Leon Lashley, an African-American officer at Gates house 100% supported Sergeant Crowley’s actions.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/25/us/politics/25gates.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&sq=Louis Gates&st=cse&scp=5
Singtao New:
A Chinese daily local news reported very similar to Times, and focused on what the government had announced. It said president Obama still considered the arrest “an overreaction,” and unfortunately gave an impression that maligning the police officer specifically and he could have calibrated those words diiferntly.
http://www.singtao.com/breakingnews/20090725b141438.asp
Mianlei Zhang
BBS News:
“Harvard row highlights US tension”, By Max Deveson. The article starts with a quotation from president Obama, which declares there are still racial issues in today’s America. The tone of the author is pbuiously bias in Hery Louis Gates Jr. and the police action against him is pure folly. In addition, the author cites examples of the past to prove his point of view.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8166278.stm
USA Today:
“Obama remark on Gates' arrest angers cops” The article pointes out that their criticism of the president Obama led to the widespread dissatisfaction with the police officers across the country. They appeal that before any judgment has been made, get all the facts first. The artic points out, Hery Louis Gates Jr. was arrested because of racial bias and refused to calm down after Crowley demanded him to show his ID and after he proved he lived there.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-07-23-cops-reaction_N.htm
The New York Times:
“Obama Shifts Tone on Gates After Mulling Debate”. It points out that Harvard University professor gates was mistakenly arrested by police led to a heated race debate, president Obama has also been involved into the vortex. After that, president Obama praised the police officer Crowley was a good man, and invited him and Gates to White House and have some beer and talk. Hoping calm this storm as soon as possible. Obama believes that the based on what he has heard, both side have overreacted. The article also pointed out, Sgt. Leon Lashley, an African-American officer at Gates house 100% supported Sergeant Crowley’s actions.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/25/us/politics/25gates.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&sq=Louis Gates&st=cse&scp=5
Singtao New:
A Chinese daily local news reported very similar to Times, and focused on what the government had announced. It said president Obama still considered the arrest “an overreaction,” and unfortunately gave an impression that maligning the police officer specifically and he could have calibrated those words diiferntly.
http://www.singtao.com/breakingnews/20090725b141438.asp
Mianlei Zhang
A Conversation of Record
New York Times: I’ve alighted upon a story that is “fit to print.”
BBC: Ah, yes. Quite an ado. Kidney trafficking, money laundering, religious leaders and political leaders all involved.
USA Today: Oh, yeah sure. I got it, too. I got the AP story.
The Jewish Week: [shaking head woefully] My outrage knows no bounds.
NYT: Indeed. You’ll be pleased to know I have all the details covered: extensive quotations abound – grotesque anecdotes, too. Did you know, for example, that money once changed hands in a box of Apple Jacks cereal?
USA: Delicious!
BBC: It’s a microcosm of U.S. culture at large, if you ask me. It’s international; it’s local. It’s a prime example of those who should be leading instead preying on the vulnerable.
USA: [nodding knowingly] Now, you all out in the U.S. of A may have heard of New Jersey. Very well known for its corruption. For example, it’s where the hit HBO series “The Sopranos” takes place. Also the American classic, “On the Waterfront.”
BBC: It’s curious. My readership doesn’t even live within the States and nevertheless I don’t feel compelled to couch this story in pop culture context.
TJW: It is clear that we’ve reached a crisis of Jewish morality.
NYT: Well, Jewish Times, that’s an interesting perspective. Acting U.S. Attorney Ralph Marra has some valuable thoughts on the matter. He calls politics in New Jersey an “ethics-free zone.” And it's true. The seediness is everything you’d imagine – paranoia of informants, meetings in diners, meetings in boiler rooms, of all places.
BBC: Quite. But it's all rather sensational, isn't it. I seem able to convey the story and include the pertinent facts without all the moral outrage and quirky detail. Maybe it's just that I'm "across the pond," so to speak.
NYT: I interviewed a New Jersey street sweeper for his opinion, as well.
USA: Peter Cammarano, the new mayor of Hoboken was arrested. Did I mention that Hoboken is Frank Sinatra’s hometown?
TJW: Forget Sinatra! Apparently, our orthodox leaders believe that the laws of man do not apply to them. They think they can be good Jews while at once being bad people.
USA: Eli Manning lives there, too!
BBC: Is he what you call a footballer? Will you just quiet down, USA Today?
TJW: While I was at Yeshiva University, I witnessed this type of behavior firsthand. The orthodox community is too concerned with keeping pork out of people’s mouths and not concerned enough with basic human decency. There is a special place in Hell for these individuals.
NYT: And the kidneys. Nobody can help being fascinated by the kidneys. Now, how much would it cost in pounds sterling to actually purchase a kidney?
BBC: Oh! I have the conversion here. Let me see: 6,000 pounds to buy from a vulnerable and not-quite-willing donor, and they’ve been turning them around for 97,000 pounds. Quite a markup, I dare say!
NYT: Hmph! Note my split infinitive above - more evidence of our alarming cutbacks in the copyediting department.
BBC: Tut, tut!
New York Times
BBC
USA Today
The Jewish Times
BBC: Ah, yes. Quite an ado. Kidney trafficking, money laundering, religious leaders and political leaders all involved.
USA Today: Oh, yeah sure. I got it, too. I got the AP story.
The Jewish Week: [shaking head woefully] My outrage knows no bounds.
NYT: Indeed. You’ll be pleased to know I have all the details covered: extensive quotations abound – grotesque anecdotes, too. Did you know, for example, that money once changed hands in a box of Apple Jacks cereal?
USA: Delicious!
BBC: It’s a microcosm of U.S. culture at large, if you ask me. It’s international; it’s local. It’s a prime example of those who should be leading instead preying on the vulnerable.
USA: [nodding knowingly] Now, you all out in the U.S. of A may have heard of New Jersey. Very well known for its corruption. For example, it’s where the hit HBO series “The Sopranos” takes place. Also the American classic, “On the Waterfront.”
BBC: It’s curious. My readership doesn’t even live within the States and nevertheless I don’t feel compelled to couch this story in pop culture context.
TJW: It is clear that we’ve reached a crisis of Jewish morality.
NYT: Well, Jewish Times, that’s an interesting perspective. Acting U.S. Attorney Ralph Marra has some valuable thoughts on the matter. He calls politics in New Jersey an “ethics-free zone.” And it's true. The seediness is everything you’d imagine – paranoia of informants, meetings in diners, meetings in boiler rooms, of all places.
BBC: Quite. But it's all rather sensational, isn't it. I seem able to convey the story and include the pertinent facts without all the moral outrage and quirky detail. Maybe it's just that I'm "across the pond," so to speak.
NYT: I interviewed a New Jersey street sweeper for his opinion, as well.
USA: Peter Cammarano, the new mayor of Hoboken was arrested. Did I mention that Hoboken is Frank Sinatra’s hometown?
TJW: Forget Sinatra! Apparently, our orthodox leaders believe that the laws of man do not apply to them. They think they can be good Jews while at once being bad people.
USA: Eli Manning lives there, too!
BBC: Is he what you call a footballer? Will you just quiet down, USA Today?
TJW: While I was at Yeshiva University, I witnessed this type of behavior firsthand. The orthodox community is too concerned with keeping pork out of people’s mouths and not concerned enough with basic human decency. There is a special place in Hell for these individuals.
NYT: And the kidneys. Nobody can help being fascinated by the kidneys. Now, how much would it cost in pounds sterling to actually purchase a kidney?
BBC: Oh! I have the conversion here. Let me see: 6,000 pounds to buy from a vulnerable and not-quite-willing donor, and they’ve been turning them around for 97,000 pounds. Quite a markup, I dare say!
NYT: Hmph! Note my split infinitive above - more evidence of our alarming cutbacks in the copyediting department.
BBC: Tut, tut!
New York Times
BBC
USA Today
The Jewish Times
SECOND TITLE FOR CONTADOR!
Unlike many sporting events, the Tour De France is the hardest bicycle racing tour in the world. Many perceive it to be the pinnacle of achievements regardless of the fact that the best racers in the world regularly use doping tactics to give themselves an edge over their competitors. Lance Armstrong is arguably considered to be the premier rider the sport has ever seen. With 7 strait victories and having fought through numerous life theatning experiences, he is considered to be the Michael Jordan of cycling.
Having dropped out of the tour for the past 3 years, he returned to the sport to attain his 8th Tour de France victory although a teammate of his, the spaniard Alberto Contador, seemed to be the strongest rider when he sealed his second title in todays final stage. "It has been an especially difficult Tour for me, but I savor it and it is more special because of it," he said after the prize ceremony.
Contador and Armstrong were both members of team Astana, a team based in Kazakstan, this year and it was a fight to the finish between the two of them. With more than a 4 minute lead coming out of the mountains, it was an easy finish for Alberto Contador to take home his second win. "I'm realistic, I did everything I could," Armstrong said to a New York Times reporter before the final stage. "For me, and even more for my kids, it's probably a healthy thing for them to see, because they saw their dad that never lost, and the kids in their class (say) 'your dad never loses,' so it's good for them to see dad get third and still be cool with that and still be happy."
A bbc reporter states "Contador, the 26-year-old, proved to be the strongest rider in the mountains and in the time trials". Being that this event is the largest of all cycling races, reporters from all over the world, writing for many different papers, have been covering these heart palpitating 21 stages and a total of 23 days.
One of the major controversies of this years Tour De France has been close to epic as ironic as it sounds, Contador was on team Astana while the majority of the team were using drug doping enhancements to increase their probability of winning. Unfortunately for Contador, his team was banned from the '08 tour and had to sit out with the rest of his teammates. This year surprisingly enough, there weren't any cases of doping.
Most of the major newspapers covered this story similarly although, some were more concentrated on the fact that Lance Armstrong will not be riding for team Astana in the next years Tour De France instead he will be leading his new team of riders for team RadioShack, a team based in the United States.
Abraham Dwek
READ ALL OVER
The articles I have chosen relate to Sufi Mohammad and his detention in Pakistan. Sufi Mohammad is the cleric who in February of this year negotiated a deal in the Swat area of Pakistan that in effect gave governing control to the Taliban. The deal collapsed in April when the Taliban broke their promise to not advance. This in turn brought a military offensive followed by retaliatory attacks by militants in the northwest and beyond. Sufi Muhammad is also the father in law of the Taliban leader in the area, Maulana Fazlullah, and the founder o f TNSM (Tehrik Nizam Shariat Mohammadi), a group banned and branded militant by the government.
I didn’t find much slant though I did feel the focus was different for each. The BBC was more of a general article, with some light background to it. USA Today was focused more on the carnage aspect- referring to suicide bombers and eyewitness accounts of "Human body parts were lying there, there was blood and people were crying in pain…”. The NY Times focused more on the Pakistani army versus Taliban militants angle, portraying it as a battle being more strongly waged and incrementally won by the Pakistani government. The Pakistani News focus was very clear: demands for Muhammad and a government leader believed to have been collaborating with the Taliban, to be taken to trial. The article is basically a press release statement from the Pukhtunkhwa Milli Awami Party.
With respect to sources, the BBC used only one (named) source, the Pakistani provincial information minister, Iftikhar Hussein. USA Today used 4 sources, quoting from local villagers as well as a University professor and military sources. The NY Times quoted 7 sources: Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani, Minister Iftikhar Hussein, Mahmood Shah, a former security chief in the tribal region, Investigator Malik Tariq Awan, police spokesman Naim Khan, a Mingora villager (Shaukat Ali), and a Pakistani army Brigadier (Brig. Tahir Khan). The Pakistani newspaper only used a press release as their source. It was the most pointed of the articles, with no background. But as it is a local paper, it makes sense that those there are keenly aware of all the circumstances and do not need multiple sources or explanations of the conditions there.
USA Today does not have a more recent article that discusses the cleric than one from June 2009. The events leading to the murder of Muhammad Maulana Alam and Ameer Izzat Khan, top aides to Sufi Muhammad, open this article. They had been detained by the Pakistani government for participating in Taliban activities that were classified as terrorist, and contrary to government authority. It is debated whether their murder was accidental as the military claims, or if it was calculated, as a political scientist at Lahore University believes. The Taliban may have murdered them themselves to avoid their giving out any information that would endanger future Taliban operations. http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2009-06-06-pakistan_N.htm
The BBC opens with much more recent news: announcing the Provincial Information Minister Iftikhar Hussein’s news conference announcing that Sufi Mohammad had been detained for encouraging terrorism and violence. The cleric was detained after holding meetings in Peshawar after being warned not to. The article describes some of the background of the players, and the peace deal that was brokered allowing the Taliban to take control of the area. There is also mention of Maulana Fazlullah, who the Pakistani government insists was harmed in an air strike. Per usual, each side claims they are strong and healthy and will neither admit any casualties nor frailties.http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8169385.stm
The Times gives quotes from the information minister for the North West Frontier Province, Mian Iftikhar Hussein, who stated that ''At this critical juncture, we cannot allow, we cannot let a person walk free, a person who has supported terrorists''. This article talks about the failed peace deal negotiated in February that ended in April but also gives the opinion from people in the region (like a tribal security leader) that the Taliban are demoralized and the arrest of Muhammad will not make much impact. The article notes however that the Pakistani authorities seem to be stepping up their efforts at stamping out the Taliban, and that in the Swat town of Mingora, they had ‘rescued’ several teenagers forcibly recruited by the Taliban. http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2009/07/26/world/AP-AS-Pakistan.html?scp=1&sq=sufi+muhammad&st=nyt
The News is a local Pakistani paper, and ironically, had the shortest article about the detention of Sufi Muhammad of the four papers. It mainly discusses the demands of a nationalist party called the Pukhtunkhwa Milli Awami Party. With Muhammad in detention, the party has demanded that he as well as former commissioner of Malakand, Syed Muhammad Javed, be taken to trial for their involvement with the Taliban as well as the bloodshed of the region, (mainly caused by TNSM).http://www.thenews.com.pk/daily_detail.asp?id=190071
I didn’t find much slant though I did feel the focus was different for each. The BBC was more of a general article, with some light background to it. USA Today was focused more on the carnage aspect- referring to suicide bombers and eyewitness accounts of "Human body parts were lying there, there was blood and people were crying in pain…”. The NY Times focused more on the Pakistani army versus Taliban militants angle, portraying it as a battle being more strongly waged and incrementally won by the Pakistani government. The Pakistani News focus was very clear: demands for Muhammad and a government leader believed to have been collaborating with the Taliban, to be taken to trial. The article is basically a press release statement from the Pukhtunkhwa Milli Awami Party.
With respect to sources, the BBC used only one (named) source, the Pakistani provincial information minister, Iftikhar Hussein. USA Today used 4 sources, quoting from local villagers as well as a University professor and military sources. The NY Times quoted 7 sources: Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani, Minister Iftikhar Hussein, Mahmood Shah, a former security chief in the tribal region, Investigator Malik Tariq Awan, police spokesman Naim Khan, a Mingora villager (Shaukat Ali), and a Pakistani army Brigadier (Brig. Tahir Khan). The Pakistani newspaper only used a press release as their source. It was the most pointed of the articles, with no background. But as it is a local paper, it makes sense that those there are keenly aware of all the circumstances and do not need multiple sources or explanations of the conditions there.
USA Today does not have a more recent article that discusses the cleric than one from June 2009. The events leading to the murder of Muhammad Maulana Alam and Ameer Izzat Khan, top aides to Sufi Muhammad, open this article. They had been detained by the Pakistani government for participating in Taliban activities that were classified as terrorist, and contrary to government authority. It is debated whether their murder was accidental as the military claims, or if it was calculated, as a political scientist at Lahore University believes. The Taliban may have murdered them themselves to avoid their giving out any information that would endanger future Taliban operations. http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2009-06-06-pakistan_N.htm
The BBC opens with much more recent news: announcing the Provincial Information Minister Iftikhar Hussein’s news conference announcing that Sufi Mohammad had been detained for encouraging terrorism and violence. The cleric was detained after holding meetings in Peshawar after being warned not to. The article describes some of the background of the players, and the peace deal that was brokered allowing the Taliban to take control of the area. There is also mention of Maulana Fazlullah, who the Pakistani government insists was harmed in an air strike. Per usual, each side claims they are strong and healthy and will neither admit any casualties nor frailties.http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8169385.stm
The Times gives quotes from the information minister for the North West Frontier Province, Mian Iftikhar Hussein, who stated that ''At this critical juncture, we cannot allow, we cannot let a person walk free, a person who has supported terrorists''. This article talks about the failed peace deal negotiated in February that ended in April but also gives the opinion from people in the region (like a tribal security leader) that the Taliban are demoralized and the arrest of Muhammad will not make much impact. The article notes however that the Pakistani authorities seem to be stepping up their efforts at stamping out the Taliban, and that in the Swat town of Mingora, they had ‘rescued’ several teenagers forcibly recruited by the Taliban. http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2009/07/26/world/AP-AS-Pakistan.html?scp=1&sq=sufi+muhammad&st=nyt
The News is a local Pakistani paper, and ironically, had the shortest article about the detention of Sufi Muhammad of the four papers. It mainly discusses the demands of a nationalist party called the Pukhtunkhwa Milli Awami Party. With Muhammad in detention, the party has demanded that he as well as former commissioner of Malakand, Syed Muhammad Javed, be taken to trial for their involvement with the Taliban as well as the bloodshed of the region, (mainly caused by TNSM).http://www.thenews.com.pk/daily_detail.asp?id=190071
RACE AND ARREST
RACE & ARREST
The eye-catching front page of New York Times online entitled “Obama Shifts Tone on Gates After Mulling Debate,” portrays a big picture of the President showing a sad face, acknowledging that his own “comments had inflamed tensions and insisted he had not meant to malign the arresting officer.” This two-page article mentioned that the police had “acted stupidly” and that the arrest was “an overreaction,” but also that, “Professor Gates probably overreacted as well.” Attached to this article are two videos with colored pictures showing separately Sgt. Crowley and the President. One entitled “Support Officer in Gates Case,” whereby police unions and other law enforcement groups said that “Sgt. James Crowley’s actions in the arrest of Professor Gates were justified.” The second one entitled “Obama on Gates Arrest” giving the President’s views on the arrest.
BBC’s front page displayed a very small picture of Professor Gates and devoted a full page article entitled “Race Tensions: Professor’s arrest highlights US ‘racial profiling:’ Unlike the New York Times, BBC refers to history of African American mistreatment, as stated “There is a long history in this country of African-Americans and Latinos being stopped by law enforcement disproportionately.” It gave a description as to what happened on Thursday, July 23, when Professor Gates was trying to enter his house and the details which led to his eventual arrest. On the same page, in a tiny box was a remark made by Ta-Hehisi Coates, “I would say that this is the sort of thing that angers upper-class black people even more than it angers anyone else.” USA Today’s front page was dedicated to the arrest of Professor Gates, entitled: “Scholar’s arrest raises racism questions.” It also contained a colored picture of the professor with links leading to other sites on ‘racial profiling,’ and views of different black politicians. It covered over 75% of the front page. These quality presses are more informing and formal in the manner they convey information and news stories.
The front page of “The Root,” a black ethnic paper, displayed a large picture on its front page of Professor Henry Louis Gates, under the title “The Root's Editor-in-Chief Henry Louis Gates Jr. Appealing to the black minority, Root criticizes the professor’s arrest and the outrage of “racial profiling in America.” This four page article covered an extensive interview with Professor Gates regarding the details of the arrest. It came as a total shock to the professor that he was arrested after he had shown the officer his identity documents and explained that it was his house. Root, unlike the other publications, stated that it was “clear that the police officer did not follow police procedures” while doing his job, and had merely presumed that the professor was guilty, not because he was trying to enter his premises, but because he was black. Root further stated that the officer, using the power of his uniform, took Professor Gates’ belt, wallet, keys, and handcuffed him, under the pretext that the professor was loud in a pubic place; and that the officer who made the arrest, “did it out of spite, and knew that the black professor was going to file a report because of his behavior.” This paper contains diverse emotions and ideas. The front page of all the newspapers focused on Professor Gates and ‘racial profiling.’
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/25/us/politics/25gates.html
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/Americas
www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-07-24
http://www.theroot.com/views/skip-gates-speaks
The eye-catching front page of New York Times online entitled “Obama Shifts Tone on Gates After Mulling Debate,” portrays a big picture of the President showing a sad face, acknowledging that his own “comments had inflamed tensions and insisted he had not meant to malign the arresting officer.” This two-page article mentioned that the police had “acted stupidly” and that the arrest was “an overreaction,” but also that, “Professor Gates probably overreacted as well.” Attached to this article are two videos with colored pictures showing separately Sgt. Crowley and the President. One entitled “Support Officer in Gates Case,” whereby police unions and other law enforcement groups said that “Sgt. James Crowley’s actions in the arrest of Professor Gates were justified.” The second one entitled “Obama on Gates Arrest” giving the President’s views on the arrest.
BBC’s front page displayed a very small picture of Professor Gates and devoted a full page article entitled “Race Tensions: Professor’s arrest highlights US ‘racial profiling:’ Unlike the New York Times, BBC refers to history of African American mistreatment, as stated “There is a long history in this country of African-Americans and Latinos being stopped by law enforcement disproportionately.” It gave a description as to what happened on Thursday, July 23, when Professor Gates was trying to enter his house and the details which led to his eventual arrest. On the same page, in a tiny box was a remark made by Ta-Hehisi Coates, “I would say that this is the sort of thing that angers upper-class black people even more than it angers anyone else.” USA Today’s front page was dedicated to the arrest of Professor Gates, entitled: “Scholar’s arrest raises racism questions.” It also contained a colored picture of the professor with links leading to other sites on ‘racial profiling,’ and views of different black politicians. It covered over 75% of the front page. These quality presses are more informing and formal in the manner they convey information and news stories.
The front page of “The Root,” a black ethnic paper, displayed a large picture on its front page of Professor Henry Louis Gates, under the title “The Root's Editor-in-Chief Henry Louis Gates Jr. Appealing to the black minority, Root criticizes the professor’s arrest and the outrage of “racial profiling in America.” This four page article covered an extensive interview with Professor Gates regarding the details of the arrest. It came as a total shock to the professor that he was arrested after he had shown the officer his identity documents and explained that it was his house. Root, unlike the other publications, stated that it was “clear that the police officer did not follow police procedures” while doing his job, and had merely presumed that the professor was guilty, not because he was trying to enter his premises, but because he was black. Root further stated that the officer, using the power of his uniform, took Professor Gates’ belt, wallet, keys, and handcuffed him, under the pretext that the professor was loud in a pubic place; and that the officer who made the arrest, “did it out of spite, and knew that the black professor was going to file a report because of his behavior.” This paper contains diverse emotions and ideas. The front page of all the newspapers focused on Professor Gates and ‘racial profiling.’
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/25/us/politics/25gates.html
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/Americas
www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-07-24
http://www.theroot.com/views/skip-gates-speaks
Octomom signs TV deal for all 14 kids!!!!
Octomom has just signed a TV deal for all 14 of her children. They will each make a collective amount of $250, 000 over a three year period. Their contracts were filed on Friday in LA Superior Court. A European production company were the ones that presented the deal to Suleman (Octomom). Eyeworks is the name of the production company, and is also the creator of the show "The Biggest Losers."
The NY Times, states a summary from the amount the kids will make over three years of filming, the name of the trust fund and how they will not be able to touch the money that goes in there until they are 18 years old. How Octomom has 4 citations against her for filming the babies when they came home. That violates child labor laws and they will appear in court on Monday. The NY Times is however the only one to state that, "The medical curiosity of their delivery turned to public outrage when it was learned that the single, unemployed mother had been caring for her six other children with the help of food stamps and Social Security disability payments for three of the youngsters.
BBC News, states the same as the other news media. It is the only one that goes into saying film crews will not follow Suleman and her children 24 hours a day, but will document certain milestones, such as birthdays and special events. BBC News doesn't post the name of the trust fund, whereas NY Times and USA Today do.
USA Today, is the longest of the four articles. This article pretty much states the same, except it is the only one that focuses more on the fact that a court appearance will be made on Monday, and it goes into more detail about the citations received and what may happen in court, as well as the laws that were broken.
Laist, this news report is very against Octomom, whereas the other 3 had a neutral view point. The Laist says, from the opening line that this is a dream come true for Octomom. The article also says how Ocotmom has said from the beginning that she wanted her kids to be on TV.
The Henry Louis Gates, Jr. Debacle
The arrest of Henry Louis Gates, Jr., a prominent scholar and director of Harvard’s Institute for African and African-American Research, made headlines across the globe this past week. At first the details were scarce, but after several hours of the story breaking the events behind the arrest had become much more clear.
Gates had just returned to Boston from a business trip and when he tried to enter his home in Cambridge the door wouldn’t open. He ended up having to push his way in, which to several neighbors it appeared someone was attempting to break in. After the neighbors called the police, an argument ensued between Gates and a Sergeant Crowley, after which Crowley booked Gates on the charge of disorderly conduct.
Why did these events make national and international headlines? There seem to be several aspects to the story, but two main points are doubtless the fact of a white officer arresting a black man in his own home (possible racial profiling?), and also the comment by President Obama on the situation itself, with him referring to the police as acting “stupidly.”
We’ll take a look at four articles covering the aftermath of the Gates incident:
The New York Times, “Obama Shifts Tone on Gates After Mulling Debate”
The NYTimes, well known for a liberal bias, comments on Obama’s effort to “diffuse a volatile national debate” over the events that had occurred in Boston last week. The article, which is two pages long, focuses on Obama’s shift in tone from Wednesday, when he made the “stupidly” remark during his national news conference, to Friday, when he placed calls to both Crowley and Gates, inviting them to the White House for a beer to discuss the situation. The Times seems to praise Obama’s swift reassessment of the matter.
BBC News, “Harvard Row Highlights US Tensions”
This article focuses on the racial tensions that still exist in the US, with the detail of a study showing that blacks are 3 times as likely as whites to be pulled over for traffic violations in Los Angeles. They refer to this study because at one point during the argument that took place at Gates’ home during his arrest, he shouted, “This is what happens to black men in America!” The BBC states that Gates, indeed, may have a point. This article seems to be somewhat unbiased, looking at raw numbers of a study done by a Yale professor.
USA Today, “Professor Gates: Ready to Move on from Arrest”
USA Today, known for its short article length and ease of reading, focuses on Gates’ willingness to move on and use the events from last week in a positive manner, bringing attention to injustice that still occurs in the US. Gates says that he has accepted President Obama’s invitation to the White House and that he looks forward to meeting with Sergeant Crowley. A noticeable difference in this article is not the length per say, but the shortness of each individual paragraph. I believe this is used to help hold readers’ attention.
Huffington Post, “Obama Addresses Gates at Briefing, Says He Called Officer”
The Huff Post is well known for its liberal slant, but has also become a trusted internet news source. This article is very similar to that of the NYTimes piece. The length and format are very alike, and the tone and subject matter are as well. There is, perhaps, more of a focus on Obama’s actions, as much of his speech during the conference and the briefing are quoted.
Gates had just returned to Boston from a business trip and when he tried to enter his home in Cambridge the door wouldn’t open. He ended up having to push his way in, which to several neighbors it appeared someone was attempting to break in. After the neighbors called the police, an argument ensued between Gates and a Sergeant Crowley, after which Crowley booked Gates on the charge of disorderly conduct.
Why did these events make national and international headlines? There seem to be several aspects to the story, but two main points are doubtless the fact of a white officer arresting a black man in his own home (possible racial profiling?), and also the comment by President Obama on the situation itself, with him referring to the police as acting “stupidly.”
We’ll take a look at four articles covering the aftermath of the Gates incident:
The New York Times, “Obama Shifts Tone on Gates After Mulling Debate”
The NYTimes, well known for a liberal bias, comments on Obama’s effort to “diffuse a volatile national debate” over the events that had occurred in Boston last week. The article, which is two pages long, focuses on Obama’s shift in tone from Wednesday, when he made the “stupidly” remark during his national news conference, to Friday, when he placed calls to both Crowley and Gates, inviting them to the White House for a beer to discuss the situation. The Times seems to praise Obama’s swift reassessment of the matter.
BBC News, “Harvard Row Highlights US Tensions”
This article focuses on the racial tensions that still exist in the US, with the detail of a study showing that blacks are 3 times as likely as whites to be pulled over for traffic violations in Los Angeles. They refer to this study because at one point during the argument that took place at Gates’ home during his arrest, he shouted, “This is what happens to black men in America!” The BBC states that Gates, indeed, may have a point. This article seems to be somewhat unbiased, looking at raw numbers of a study done by a Yale professor.
USA Today, “Professor Gates: Ready to Move on from Arrest”
USA Today, known for its short article length and ease of reading, focuses on Gates’ willingness to move on and use the events from last week in a positive manner, bringing attention to injustice that still occurs in the US. Gates says that he has accepted President Obama’s invitation to the White House and that he looks forward to meeting with Sergeant Crowley. A noticeable difference in this article is not the length per say, but the shortness of each individual paragraph. I believe this is used to help hold readers’ attention.
Huffington Post, “Obama Addresses Gates at Briefing, Says He Called Officer”
The Huff Post is well known for its liberal slant, but has also become a trusted internet news source. This article is very similar to that of the NYTimes piece. The length and format are very alike, and the tone and subject matter are as well. There is, perhaps, more of a focus on Obama’s actions, as much of his speech during the conference and the briefing are quoted.
Saturday, July 25, 2009
READ ALL OVER: Winehouse Ducks The Flash
This past Thursday, British singing star, Amy Winehouse was trailed in London court. Winehouse took that stand as she was trialed for allegedly attacking dancer, Sherene Flash, last September. Reports say that, Flash was hit in the eye by the 25-year old musician after simply asking to take her picture at a charity ball. With the testimony of witnesses, prosecutor, Lyall Thompson, stated how it was evident that the defendant appeared to be under the influence of alcohol or “some other substance”. Prior to the hearing, Winehouse twirled in front of the judge t prove she was too short to be a brawler. With the singer denying any assault, she claimed to be startled by Flash’s drunken friend who tried to jump into the shot. She explains how she meant to “just get away” and how she was scared of those people who cannot “handle their drink”. Acquitted of the charges, Amy Winehouse was found not-guilty in the London court and was “relieved” and eager to go home.
In the AM New York newspaper, the writer focused more so on the facts that led up to the causation and trial. The AM uses sources established from prior. As a weekly paper, it provided the cases' surrounding information. With the result of the case established after the sources publication, it has less information about the results of the hearings and case. From a more liberal angle, the AM seemed to slant in favor of the discharged defendant. The New York Post, a daily provider of media, manages to convey the facts during and prior to the case. With useful information about lawyers and specific locations, they are able to summarize the “big picture” and main outlook on the story. As more of an unbiased or conservative view, the Post not only shades a balanced light on the issue but also manages to convey the idea of how the charismatic celebrity "beats the slap" of the British Law. I feel that each article published was aimed to satisfy the taste of readers of both papers.
http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/24/amy-winehouse-is-acquitted-of-assault/?scp=2&sq=amy%20winehouse&st=cse
ABC Local:
http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/entertainment&id=6929678
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)