Antionette Rodriguez
Comparing News Reports
I compared the New York Times with the Middle East Times (MET). Both newspapers are respected and have a wide variety of readers. I compared and contrasted how each one covered Barack Obama’s appearance in Iraq and how he addressed Iraq’s situation and the withdrawal of American troops.
The photo used in the New York Times article, “In Baghdad, Obama Presses Iraqi Leader to Unite Factions, showed a crowd of troops surrounding Obama like fans bombarding a celebrity. The back of his body was shown grabbing a troop’s hand, but it looked more like an artist who was about to go on stage to perform. The photo was very inspiring and had a glorious feeling; it reflected America’s attitude about Obama. It is easy to equate Obama with a celebrity because he is different and has made himself relatable to the American people. The photo in the MET, “Obama in Iraq: ‘Time to Start Preparing for Withdrawal,” is Obama’s face with an exaggerated frown looking towards the Iraqi Prime Minister. It is not as glamorous and celebratory as the New York Times, but it portrays Obama as a politician, who has to make tough decisions. The photo also sets the tone for the article and implies the seriousness of the issue at hand.
After reading both of the articles, “In Baghdad” read like a story. The language was not as direct and objective as the MET. There is a lot of description and words that make it sound entertaining rather than just fact-based news. For example, the journalists write that Obama addressed a “cheering crowd” with a “hint of impatience” in his voice and declared, “‘it is time for us to transition to the Iraqis.’” The article does quote Obama but in between his actual words, the article also manages to conveniently drop a specific name. Obama gave his speech in front of American troops packed into Al Faw Palace, “an imposing sandstone building in an artificial lake that once belonged to Saddam Hussein.” And if you click on his name the website directs you to a photo of Hussein shooting a gun along with plenty of photos and videos of his life as an “Iraqi tyrant.” What the connection is between Hussein’s lake and Obama’s speech is not clear, but it is an American journalist habit to insert a Middle Eastern name whenever to stir up emotions. In this case, the intended emotions are triumph and rejoice. It is rejoice in the fact that America has survived the war on terror and has a president that is restoring America’s reputation abroad. The article continues, “a pall of dust hung over Baghdad, grounding the helicopters that were to take the president and his entourage into the city itself.” It has great imagery and words to detail the feeling and moment, but it is that the point of a news article? The MET article’s first three paragraphs covered the 5 basic questions (who, what, where, when, why) and stated general facts. Both articles even choose to quote different parts of his speech. “In Baghdad” quoted Obama’s plan to “transition” to the Iraqis, “Obama in Iraq” quoted a very key statement that was left out in the above article about Obama assuring Iraqis that “‘the United States has no ambitions on Iraqi soil or its resources’ and that he was committed to the full withdrawal of U.S forces from the country by the end of 2011.” The comment was critical because Obama shows that he is a new administration and intends to re-establish trust. The comment was not mentioned in the New York Times article. Unlike the MET article, the New York Times quotes Obama twice. First they report that Obama “announces plans to withdraw all combat forces by August 2010,” a few paragraphs later they note “Obama pledged to abide by American commitments to Iraq, including the timetable for withdrawing all troops by the end of 2011.”
The reporting in the article, “In Baghdad,” was problematic. It is a “technique” happens all too often throughout the media. The infamous “he said she said.” The article reports that they are unsure why Obama chose to visit Iraq first but they rely on Robert Gibbs, White House press secretary, for the answer. He says that Obama “did so because of Iraq’s proximity to Turkey.” This kind of reporting is undependable, inaccurate, and it does not appear in the MET article. It shows lack of reporting and lack of answers. This allows the media to rely on “inside sources” or representatives or anyone else they can get a quote from for the sake of developing a story, I mean, news report. The article also reports that Obama says he has a responsibility for withdrawing the troops in a timely and careful way so that “‘we don’t see a complete collapse into violence.’” The article ends by stating he was discussing Iraq among other issues. I was not present when Obama was giving the speech however, when he refers to “we” I believe he is referring to how concerned he is about all the parties involved in the war and how change could lead to more violence overall. But the article splices through his speech and associates violence with the Iraq, implying that Iraq generates violence and that we need to be cautious.
Another interesting thing about the MET article was how it included criticism and created a dialogue. They mention the Arab critics who are skeptical that “Obama’s strategy doesn’t differ from his predecessor’s that is largely seen as an imperialist American colonization of the oil-rich region.” The article’s reporting gives a wider range of views. It continues, “some Arab commentators suggest that Obama would have done better to ‘apologize’ for an American war that has left the country in tatters and swept by sectarian strife.’” It is a topic and opinion that many people have and the article allows those questions and voices to be heard. The New York Times does not provide for a discussion of the people, rather it creates a “factual” story that the reader could believe because it does not challenge or demand thought out of the reader.
Neither article was biased, each writer had a voice based on the information they chose to include or exclude. Reviewing an event from two different perspectives was informative because it allowed me to see the different agendas from each newspaper. Comparing the articles made it more obvious for me to ask "what was not said?" and "what is the other side?" It is easily forgotten that there are so many perspectives to events and issues, but those other sides need to be considered in order for us to be accurately informed about a situation.
No comments:
Post a Comment