Monday, March 30, 2009

Dissolution of the Soviet Union

When it comes to deciding what is news, the industry’s decision makers tend to agree on key characteristics implying the importance and scope of the information that will make a headline. Such characteristics (timeliness, proximity, human interest/impact, prominence, etc…) often determine the place, or rank of the specific story in relation to the medium in which it is published or broadcasted. However, taking in consideration the fact that gatekeepers of the profession view the news through a prism of their own biases or lenses, it will be safe to conclude that this ranking is rather subjective — the notion of importance is a volatile abstract depending on editor’s own preferences and/or the very nature of a singled out medium. At this point, the same goes for the Newseum Top News Stories of the Century, for “even historians might argue about what’s most important.” Thus, it rather came as a surprise that sinking of the “unsinkable” Titanic and assembly line creation by the automaker Ford surpassed such a major event of the twentieth century as the disbandment of the USSR, America’s number one nemesis that influenced the foreign policy of the latter for more than fifty years.  Hence, intrigued by this order, I’ve decided to examine the coverage of the event presented by two very different, yet affluent American newspapers — the Boston Globe and The New York Times. Although this analysis cannot account for the mood of the entire US media of the time, it can, however, shed some light on attitudes of the time vis-à-vis the conduct and reporting style of the period’s mainstream outlets.

Case 1: The Boston Globe

The objective, factual, and rather dry style of Elizabeth Neuffer’s  “Republics dissolve Soviet Union. New commonwealth is formed” is a vivid example of modern day journalism. Beginning with a standard lede based on the five pillars of the contemporary news writing (who, what, where, when, why, how) followed by the inverted pyramid structure of the article’s body, Neuffer’s account presents the information at its rawest — no speculations, no opinions, and no sensationalism (despite the overall significance of the event) — just naked facts supported by quotes and materials from the relevant newsmakers such as heads of states, their spokespeople, and news agencies like Associated Press and Moscow- based Interfax. The lack of scholarly terminology and academic jargon and presence of scattered throughout the story bits of historical background and common knowledge facts (Russia’s transition from tsarism to communism, the formation of the USSR, the centrism and autocracy of the regime, etc…), suggest that the article was written for the general audience who might be unfamiliar with Russia’s cultural and historical specifics.

Mainly focusing on the newly formed commonwealth of independent states once comprised the USSR, Neuffer talks about the diplomatic recognition of the former, citing the key actor states’ policy makers — from George Bush’s White House to Japanese Foreign Ministry’s Michio Watanabe, not forgetting the newly emerged leaders of the day-old alliance. In doing so, the author presents contrasting opinions regarding the matter and the future of the new world order — yet another attribute of profession every reporter embraces since his or her days in j-school.

Issues such as democratization, liberalizations of markets, and nuclear disarmament do poke their heads throughout the article, depicting the top priorities of the American Foreign policy amidst the zeitgeist of the previous decade.

Case 2: The New York Times

Leaning towards the feature style of newspaper writing, Francis X. Clines’ “The end of the Soviet Union; 11 Soviet states form commonwealth without clearly defying its powers” is a 1,400-word article where the hardest of news meet analytical depth of high end, white-collar aimed publications such as Foreign Policy or Time Magazine.

Unlike the cool, concise language of the Boston Globe, The New York Times’ take on the unfolded event is portrayed through more sophisticated, intelligent writing full of witty adjectives that show author’s familiarity with the subject matter as well as the quality of education he received prior to joining the newspaper’s staff.

With great attention to detail and full of symbolic descriptions (“…small freshly-minted flags of their sovereign republics under a huge bronze-toned medallion that still bore the hammer and sickle of Communism), the article goes beyond the mere facts (who met who and did what) — it elaborates on a variety of complex issues ranging from the possible UN Security Council’s actions regarding the nuclear dilemma contrasting the new status quo, to long-lasting impact on micro and macro economic development the CIS might face in the future.

What’s striking about this article is that despite being a hot button breaking news story, it is rather abundant with hints regarding the author’s own views (neo-liberal school of thought), as he attributes the economic and political chaos to “seven decades of central dictatorship,” while acknowledging the common good of “free-market prosperity” via change of course to full democratization. Moreover, the streaks of author’s own bias shows through selected phrases and sentences, such as “the uncertain hands of the republic parliaments” or “the meeting today went a considerable step beyond, for not only was the new association enlarged and sealed with pledges of peaceful collaboration, but also the heads of state began settling some differences.”

With that being said, it is evident that although exceptionally well written, as a news story this particular article is somewhat inferior to the first one discussed, for the objectivity of the presented account is blurred by writer’s own “lenses” and visions.


Although very different in style and nature, both of the articles are nevertheless are the examples of modern journalism as we know it, for both of the stories are constructed in a familiar way relevant to the trend of the profession which remained virtually unchanged for the past two decades. First, they both begin with appropriate ledes (the 5 Ws) and present the information in the descending order of importance (the inverted pyramid). Secondly, the materials presented are accompanied by supporting quotes and evidence. Thirdly, despite the light bias of the second, both stories accomplish its main job, that is to inform the public by conveying facts corresponding to the event. And overall, they both reflect on issues that were relevant to the time during which the stories were written.



Neuffer, Elizabeth. “Republics Dissolve Soviet Union. New Commonwealth is Formed.” Boston Globe. Dec. 22, 1991, p.1


Clines, Francis X. “The End of The Soviet Union; 11 Soviet States Form Commonwealth Without Clearly Defying Its Purposes.” The New York Times, Dec. 22, 1991, p.A1.

No comments:

Post a Comment