Looking at different news organizations across the world, there seems to be a dissimilarity in the way that the news is constructed and presented to the public. A U.S news organization, for instance, may cover a story about events in the middle east much different than how a middle eastern news organization would. A large reason for this, is because the audiences of the news organizations are different. When one reads CNN for example, they have to not only be informed as to the basis of the current event, but also familiarize themselves with the area, the people involved, and other information specific to the middle east that the people living there would already know.
We can examine the differences in U.S news and foreign news by reading an article about the same event on each organization's website and comparing how the story is developed and displayed to the public. In both the U.S news organization CNN and the middle eastern Aljazeera,the same event of Syrian protests and violence during a supposed four-day truce (which coincides with the Muslim holiday Eid al-Adha) between Syrian government forces and rebels is presented.
Differences between CNN article and Aljazeera Article
One immediate difference that is noticeable between the coverage by CNN and the Aljazeera is that CNN begins the story with a very brief summary of what is to be read in the article in a way that plays on the emotions of the readers. "Snipers in Damascus. Soldiers shooting protesters. Clashes outside a military camp." (CNN) This short description with blunt sentences gives the reader the intensity of the event. In the Aljazeera article, the writer goes right into the story, without a dramatic introduction or opinion. The first sentence dives right into the unbiased details of the event: "Fierce clashes between Syrian government forces and rebels have broken out…" (Aljazeera) Another difference that can be observed is that the CNN supplements the article with youtube videos to which CNN states that they cannot authenticate the footage. Because the videos cannot be specifically authenticated, it gives the reader a sense of the possibility that the article isn't 100% accurate. [Video to the right is the video linked by the CNN article] The article by Aljazeera does not give any links to videos, nor any links in which they state that they cannot authenticate the information. Since the readers of CNN are not, in general, well versed in middle eastern traditions, the article educates the reader about the holiday Eid al-Adha. This information is not important to recite in the Aljazeera version because it is well-known. The CNN version focuses part of the story on the amount of people who were killed during the protests (at least 30) and in some of the ways that these people were killed. Contrasting this, the Aljazeera version just includes a quote that says there is "fewer victims than usual". It seems that the CNN article is trying the make the protests out to look more extreme and violent than the events really are.
(Picture of Syrian protests used in the Aljazeera article)
To recap, in general the Aljazeera article is shorter and based almost entirely on facts and quotes. The CNN article is longer, includes unauthenticated videos and a more U.S interpretation of the events. Also, it educates the readers about the background for the events. (Picture of Syrian protests used in the Aljazeera article)
Which is More Trustworthy?
Personally, I trust the CNN version more because CNN seems to be a more liberal news organization that is focused mostly on getting an unbiased account of world events. The CNN article presents the information in a way as to educate the reader about the background of the events and the fighting while also presenting the specific event. Although the Aljazeera article mostly just presents facts and quotes of the event, I still trust CNN more because I am familiar with CNN and I feel like I am getting accurate information from the country in which I live. This is not to discredit Aljazeera however, because the information produced by Aljazeera was informative and factual.
Missing Information?
The CNN version speficially states that "CNN can't confirm reports of the violence as the Syrian government has severely restricted the access of international journalists" (CNN). Because of this, the readers of the CNN version are not getting completely factual and statistical information. Because the CNN article is missing the availability of their own journalists to be reporting on the Syrian protests first-hand, there is a disconnect between the event and the article. The Aljazeera article has speficic quotes from the head of the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, Rami Abdel Rahman. Rahman describes when the violence started (0730 GMT), where it started, and details involving the violence. The Syrian Observatory gave more information throughout the article on the events of the protests, while CNN did not have equal access to information.
I think this was a strong post with some valid points. I also agree that CNN is mostly unbiased and reports accurate information on world events. However, after skimming over the articles I found that CNN made the protests seem more dramatic and that their information was not entirely based on facts. For example, they explained detailed numbers of killing, how people were killed, and even posted a Youtube Video. However, there is no concrete proof that the video footage is even real. The Aljazeera news explained what happened respectfully and without the need to jump to conclusions and make the protests look more violent then they were.
ReplyDeleteSimilarly, after reading a NYTIMES article titled, “Afghan Suicide Bomber Kills Dozens of Worshipers” and a France24 article “Suicide bomb kills dozens at Afghan mosque” it also appears again, that the US news article was much more dramatic and detailed compared to the France article. The NYtimes article quotes things like, “the hospital is overwhelmed by dead and wounded bodies; all off-duty doctors were called in” (Rubin, Rahimi). The France24 article is shorter and seems to be based entirely on facts. It also does not describe the horrid scene like the NYtimes article did.
In general, I think US articles sometimes portray a different picture. The news reporters talk up the news and make it seem much more extreme to get people to continue reading their article. I am not arguing that a majority of the information reported is not accurate, I am just suggesting that US articles are described and presented in a much different way then other countries.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/27/world/asia/afghanistan-suicide-bombing.html?ref=world
http://www.france24.com/en/20121026-afghanistan-suicide-bomb-kills-dozens-mosque-maymana-eid-al-adha-taliban
My initial reaction to this article was well thought out, and researched, and very informative. There are however, some additional points I would like to address. As Lauren stated there are clear differences in the way CNN and Aljazeera display, inform, and write the news. I attribute these differences to the difference in cultures in the United States and in the Middle East. In the U.S. consumers are drawn to news by catchy titles, enticing graphics, and a short summary of what they may or may not read. Because there is so much information out there and available to the public, news coverage stations, articles, and stories need to be tailored to meet the needs of its key publics. Although I am no expert on Middle Eastern customs and cultures, I feel it is fair to say that the content provided and theme in which Aljazeera displays its information is a representation of the way Middle Eastern consumers like to get their information. The saying "different strokes for different folks applies here". In different parts of the world people care about different things and have different priorities. While I am not shutting down the notion that some information is hidden from the public or twisted so that people remain in the dark, I am simply making the argument that not every country is the same and neither is the way they receive, look for, or take in information in the news.
ReplyDeletehttp://irevolution.net/2008/12/10/international-news-coverage-in-a-new-media-world/
Just as you emphasized in your post, American and foreign news coverage differentiate themselves by the stories they publicize even if these stories are similar. The way they present material allows them to create a distinguished approach that makes it relatively easy for audiences to see which sources are more trustworthy than the other. After reading both articles I felt that CNN’s coverage was sensationalized and keenly interesting in dramatizing the actual plot. On the other hand, Al Jazeera went straight to the point with hard facts without “fluffing” the material. Although written in 2003, Danna Harman’s article “World and America Watching Different Wars” adds insight into why these differences are present. She adds that “most Americans, watching CNN, Fox, or the US television networks, are not seeing as much coverage of injured Iraqi citizens, or being given more than a glimpse of the antiwar protests now raging in the Muslim world and beyond” which can help explain why CNN is avid in providing a melodramatic account to these stories. CNN might be trying to divert their news organization from the misconception that American news don’t cover accurate information about the struggles in the Arab world. But their approach has done just the opposite because now we’re getting a lot of “fluff” and not facts as in CNN’s article. Harman also mentions that the “European press has tended to be more balanced than the US media in dealing with the war, in part because Europe is so much closer to the Muslim world.” Although Al Jazeera isn't European because of its proximity to the “Muslim world” we are able to get more accurate and unbiased information from the mere fact that its close to the source. With this in mind, I would consider Al Jazeera's article more trustworthy than CNN’s article.
ReplyDeleteSource: http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0325/p01s04-woiq.html2
This is something that I have learned about in the past and I strongly believe there is a large difference between US news sources and Al Jazeera. US sources such CNN and Fox always differ from what Al Jazeera says in their articles. Al Jazeera is clearly less biased and has way more facts versus US sources which have more opinions and interviews with Americans that have a bias towards the United States. But recently Al Jazeera has been faking some of the news about syria and staging some of the stories they air. It is hard to say as just a listener and viewer but expert and investigative journalists have said that Al Jazeera has been staging news video and news stories. In a video they show an explosions of an oil tank but in the video it is clear there was no explosion and it was staged.
ReplyDeleteI agree that US news is biased and shows a one sided view and often Al Jazeera shows the real view of what is actually going on. But after seeing footage of staged events set up by Al Jazeera I don't know what to expect anymore. I don't know what to believe and who to go to for news. I personally don't believe there can be a news source without bias or a one sided view. Maybe one day there will be but as of now there isn't.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JtzU1tGvvVo
I found this post to be very interesting and informative, and also gave me an idea of how different media outlets vary when it comes to reporting the exact same incident. Like another source highlights, it is almost impossible for a source to not have media bias, simply due to the fact that each source caters to a different consumer. I found it interesting how the post noted that the CNN article had to go more in depth to describe the Muslim holiday, while obviously the Aljazeera article could omit this information because their readers are generally Muslim and therefore familiar with it. Even this simple inclusion of detail for clarity on CNN's part instantly creates a divide between the point of view and therefore the interpretation of the articles. I was also struck by her note that the Aljazeera article quoted there were "fewer victims than usual" while the CNN article creates a dramatic and chaotic picture that seems like this kinda of violence is greater than usual. I think this can be attributed to the fact that those living in the Middle East witness violence on a more frequent basis than we do because of all military presence throughout past years. Despite the differences in the reporting, I think both articles do a good job of covering the information for their audience, and I think this post did a good job of highlighting the kinds of differences found in media outlets.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-media-bias-and-where-does-it-come-from.htm
There are definite differences in the construction of the CNN article and the Aljazeera article on the Syrian protests and attacks during what was supposed to be a four day truce over a Muslim holiday. The post hits the major points in differentiating between the two accounts with CNN’s version providing more background information on the events in Syria and what the Muslim holiday is all about to make up for any non-concrete or missing information in the article while Aljazeera only presents short, solid facts about the recent events. But despite, the familiarity of CNN, I would have to disagree with trusting this news source for this particular story over Aljazeera. One main reason for this is in response to Lauren’s note that the Aljazeera article stated that there were “fewer victims than usual” due to the truce while CNN focuses solely on the tragedy and extreme attacks and protests in spite of the truce. A thesis by Vickie Ortiz Vazquez claims, “…there is a lack of international news coverage and that international coverage, when it does exist, is sensational, negative and related to United States interest in some way.” This relates to CNN’s reporting which may have over developed the protests or focused too much on the truce’s tragic failure in order to stir emotion and shock value and thus gain a larger audience. Because of Aljazeera’s cut and dry facts, I would trust its reporting more for the Syrian attacks and protests if I were looking for a more accurate account of what is going on.
ReplyDeletehttp://minds.wisconsin.edu/handle/1793/333