Wednesday, April 8, 2009
First Cloned Sheep Dolly
First Cloned Sheep, Dolly, Creates Scientific Stir
In 1997 the Scientific community was changed forever as Britain embryologist, Ian Wilmut along with a team of researchers announced he had cloned the first sheep Dolly. Wilmut took the DNA of a sheep and created a cloned lamb, Dolly. This discovery shocked many on a broad range of levels, varying from scientific shock to ethical uneasiness. Two articles from The New York Times report on the discovery of Dolly with two varied outlooks. “Scientist Reports First Cloning Ever of Adult Mammal” explains the cloning process in great detail and can be intriguing to a scientific mind or quite dry as I experienced. “With Cloning of A Sheep, the Ethical Ground Shifts” debates whether cloning may become potentially beneficial or harmful.
In “Scientist Reports First Cloning Ever of Adult Mammal” the process of cloning Dolly starting with a mammary cell is explained intricately. This article, published February 23, 1997, states, “The method could work for any animal and that he hoped to use it next to clone cattle.” This article is all-encompassing as it provides scientific knowledge of how Dolly was cloned and implications for the future of cloning. This article also provides many quotes from Doctor Wilmut and counters his points with quotes from other medical researchers. This article is well written, although it may be hard to understand for some readers who get bored by facts. The article sticks to the point and doesn’t shy away from the facts for the most part, besides a few quotes.
In the article “With Cloning of A Sheep, the Ethical Ground Shifts” although this is article is somewhat contemporary, I feel that it may have some bias as it starts out with, “When a scientist whose goal is to turn animals into drug factories…” Whether that is true or not, I’m not sure, but Dr. Wilmut never said that was his goal in the article and thus I think it may be a presumption. The article than goes into greater depth in the scientific way Dolly was cloned. It also offers points and counterpoints of why Dolly and future cloning may be beneficial or harmful. This article is also well written and even includes implications for cloning such as genetic engineering. This article allows the reader to understand the issue at hand and make a good decision for him/herself about cloning.
Although I believe both articles to be well written and not have a lot of fluff, I personally like the article, “With Cloning of A Sheep, the Ethical Ground Shifts.” I prefer this article, because it made me think more of what my viewpoint on cloning would be if there ever were decisions to be made about it. This article also kept my attention longer because it was more about ethics than just the scientific way of how cloning came about. However, I found both of these articles to be in the AP style and all the quotes they had for the most part were applicable and added more depth and analysis to the issue at hand.
Sources:
“With Cloning of A Sheep, The Ethical Ground Shifts” : http://www.nytimes.com/1997/02/24/us/with-cloning-of-a-sheep-the-ethical-ground-shifts.html?sec=&spon=&scp=8&sq=scientists%20clone%20sheep&st=cse&pagewanted=1
“Scientist Reports First Cloning Ever of Adult Mammal” : http://www.nytimes.com/1997/02/23/us/scientist-reports-first-cloning-ever-of-adult-mammal.html?sec=health&spon=&scp=2&sq=Scientist%20Reports%20First%20Cloning%20Ever%20of%20adult%20mammal&st=cse&pagewanted=1
In 1997 the Scientific community was changed forever as Britain embryologist, Ian Wilmut along with a team of researchers announced he had cloned the first sheep Dolly. Wilmut took the DNA of a sheep and created a cloned lamb, Dolly. This discovery shocked many on a broad range of levels, varying from scientific shock to ethical uneasiness. Two articles from The New York Times report on the discovery of Dolly with two varied outlooks. “Scientist Reports First Cloning Ever of Adult Mammal” explains the cloning process in great detail and can be intriguing to a scientific mind or quite dry as I experienced. “With Cloning of A Sheep, the Ethical Ground Shifts” debates whether cloning may become potentially beneficial or harmful.
In “Scientist Reports First Cloning Ever of Adult Mammal” the process of cloning Dolly starting with a mammary cell is explained intricately. This article, published February 23, 1997, states, “The method could work for any animal and that he hoped to use it next to clone cattle.” This article is all-encompassing as it provides scientific knowledge of how Dolly was cloned and implications for the future of cloning. This article also provides many quotes from Doctor Wilmut and counters his points with quotes from other medical researchers. This article is well written, although it may be hard to understand for some readers who get bored by facts. The article sticks to the point and doesn’t shy away from the facts for the most part, besides a few quotes.
In the article “With Cloning of A Sheep, the Ethical Ground Shifts” although this is article is somewhat contemporary, I feel that it may have some bias as it starts out with, “When a scientist whose goal is to turn animals into drug factories…” Whether that is true or not, I’m not sure, but Dr. Wilmut never said that was his goal in the article and thus I think it may be a presumption. The article than goes into greater depth in the scientific way Dolly was cloned. It also offers points and counterpoints of why Dolly and future cloning may be beneficial or harmful. This article is also well written and even includes implications for cloning such as genetic engineering. This article allows the reader to understand the issue at hand and make a good decision for him/herself about cloning.
Although I believe both articles to be well written and not have a lot of fluff, I personally like the article, “With Cloning of A Sheep, the Ethical Ground Shifts.” I prefer this article, because it made me think more of what my viewpoint on cloning would be if there ever were decisions to be made about it. This article also kept my attention longer because it was more about ethics than just the scientific way of how cloning came about. However, I found both of these articles to be in the AP style and all the quotes they had for the most part were applicable and added more depth and analysis to the issue at hand.
Sources:
“With Cloning of A Sheep, The Ethical Ground Shifts” : http://www.nytimes.com/1997/02/24/us/with-cloning-of-a-sheep-the-ethical-ground-shifts.html?sec=&spon=&scp=8&sq=scientists%20clone%20sheep&st=cse&pagewanted=1
“Scientist Reports First Cloning Ever of Adult Mammal” : http://www.nytimes.com/1997/02/23/us/scientist-reports-first-cloning-ever-of-adult-mammal.html?sec=health&spon=&scp=2&sq=Scientist%20Reports%20First%20Cloning%20Ever%20of%20adult%20mammal&st=cse&pagewanted=1
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
The Home PC Future
It was the late 1970s and the age of home computers had just begun. Soon, computers would run entire households: turning on lights, doing your taxes, balancing your checkbook and even preparing your meals. They would do every single menial task using a chip that was the same size as the one that existed in pocket calculators, but with the power of the 1949 ENIAC computer, which was the size of a city block. The home computer would completely take control of our lives, and we’d be living the lives as seen on the cartoon “The Jetsons.”
Well, they were pretty close.
In 1977 the Apple II home computer launched and it rang alarms declaring the future had arrived. The New York Times picked this up as an opportunity to explore the realm of home computers. In their coverage, they sought to find a purpose, a reason for owning a home computer. The Apple II cost $1,300 when it first came out, and was a lot of money for a regular consumer to invest in. There simply had to be a reason to buy this computer. They interviewed other computer makers, who all boasted the fact that their computers were going to make people’s lives easier, especially businesses. There was no real reason why the average household should have this computer, but the possibility for them to have it lingered.
The Los Angeles Times took a different approach. They seemed excited about the future of technology. The story that particularly struck me started out by outlining an outlandish detail of a computerized lifestyle, where the computer did everything you could possibly think of. It recognized that computers to many were something belonging to the elite, but pointed to a future where everyone had one. They also recognized people’s fear in the use of computers. They noted that children would most likely be the ones who fully grasp technology, which struck me because often adults will say that today; that their kids know how to use computers better than they do, despite it not being an integral part of their lives.
These stories are easily compared to contemporary stories. Technology moves so fast that coverage is very much accelerated as well, but always look ahead. Tech stories often involve new technologies and how they are supposed to changed people’s lives, or how they can be applied with other technologies. For instance, the advent of web applications has brought a whole new dialogue into the tech community: is cloud-computing, that is, applications running on servers on the Internet and accessing the data through a web browser (ex. Google Docs), relevant? Many speculate its future and its possible uses, while others disagree and say its useless, much like the newspapers did back in the 1970s when discussing home computers.
It is interesting to see how confused and shocked people were of home computers nearly 30 years ago when we think about how we use them today, and how important they are in our daily lives. Back then, they didn’t know what to do with them, and now we don’t know what to do without them.
-(CE)Ian
Articles:
• Cook, Loiuse. "Your Own Computer May Soon Combat Bill Gremlins." Los Angeles Times 24 Oct. 1977: D12.
• Dembart, Lee. "Computer Show's Message: 'Be the First on Your Block'" New York Times 26 Aug. 1977: 10.
Well, they were pretty close.
In 1977 the Apple II home computer launched and it rang alarms declaring the future had arrived. The New York Times picked this up as an opportunity to explore the realm of home computers. In their coverage, they sought to find a purpose, a reason for owning a home computer. The Apple II cost $1,300 when it first came out, and was a lot of money for a regular consumer to invest in. There simply had to be a reason to buy this computer. They interviewed other computer makers, who all boasted the fact that their computers were going to make people’s lives easier, especially businesses. There was no real reason why the average household should have this computer, but the possibility for them to have it lingered.
The Los Angeles Times took a different approach. They seemed excited about the future of technology. The story that particularly struck me started out by outlining an outlandish detail of a computerized lifestyle, where the computer did everything you could possibly think of. It recognized that computers to many were something belonging to the elite, but pointed to a future where everyone had one. They also recognized people’s fear in the use of computers. They noted that children would most likely be the ones who fully grasp technology, which struck me because often adults will say that today; that their kids know how to use computers better than they do, despite it not being an integral part of their lives.
These stories are easily compared to contemporary stories. Technology moves so fast that coverage is very much accelerated as well, but always look ahead. Tech stories often involve new technologies and how they are supposed to changed people’s lives, or how they can be applied with other technologies. For instance, the advent of web applications has brought a whole new dialogue into the tech community: is cloud-computing, that is, applications running on servers on the Internet and accessing the data through a web browser (ex. Google Docs), relevant? Many speculate its future and its possible uses, while others disagree and say its useless, much like the newspapers did back in the 1970s when discussing home computers.
It is interesting to see how confused and shocked people were of home computers nearly 30 years ago when we think about how we use them today, and how important they are in our daily lives. Back then, they didn’t know what to do with them, and now we don’t know what to do without them.
-(CE)Ian
Articles:
• Cook, Loiuse. "Your Own Computer May Soon Combat Bill Gremlins." Los Angeles Times 24 Oct. 1977: D12.
• Dembart, Lee. "Computer Show's Message: 'Be the First on Your Block'" New York Times 26 Aug. 1977: 10.
The ENIAC Super Brain
The ENIAC computer was heralded as a super brain by the press. It was marveled as a great technological advance in a time where technology was just beginning. The ENIAC was unveiled in 1946 and was funded by the U.S. Military. Its main use seemed to be centered on calculating missile paths during wartime. The press was either amazed by this grand computer brain and its use in the field or its use in the advancement of technology.
The New York Times reported that this was a “mathematical brain” that could do computations 5000 times faster than a human could. The stories seemed to focus around its technological aspects, going over countless figures discussing how fast it was compared to other computers in that era. It doesn’t even mention its main purpose as a machine to help the military project missile paths during war. The story revolves around how this machine is smarter than a human being. In the 40s, I’m sure that this news came as a shock. A machine better than a human being, not physically, but intellectually? The headlines made sure people wondered that and used that to hook them into reading the article, where it bombarded them with facts and figures.
The Los Angeles Times barely mentioned the speed or the figures in the articles I found. Instead it focused on how it will be a great help to troops out fighting wars. This makes complete sense since the purpose of the ENIAC was to do just that. They also tended to call the machine a ‘weird robot,’ which sort of speaks to a fear in the use of these devices. Robots are almost analogous to monsters; if they aren’t helping us, they are taking over the world. There were still stories about how this will help man solve problems, and talk about its technological aspects, but always start right away in telling us how useful this will be for military use.
It makes sense for a country to be enamored with wartime technology. They had just gotten out of a war and a machine boasted as a giant brain could solve problems that might prevent anymore bloodshed would probably seem like a great idea. Computers today are very much presented in this fashion. Access to technology is regarded to be an essential aspect of one’s life, yet there is still this amazement and wonderment in it. It is still seen as a way to better our lives and the lives of others, just as the ENIAC was supposed to better the lives of mathematicians back then.
-(CE)Ian
Articles:
• "Era of 'Thinking Machines' Forecast in UCLA Preview." Los Angeles Times 30 July 1948: 1.
• Lissner, Will. "Mechanical 'Brain' Has Its Troubles." New York Times 14 Dec. 1947: 49.
• "Mechanical Brain Can Work Problems Too Deep For Man." Los Angeles Times 22 Aug. 1949: 24.
The New York Times reported that this was a “mathematical brain” that could do computations 5000 times faster than a human could. The stories seemed to focus around its technological aspects, going over countless figures discussing how fast it was compared to other computers in that era. It doesn’t even mention its main purpose as a machine to help the military project missile paths during war. The story revolves around how this machine is smarter than a human being. In the 40s, I’m sure that this news came as a shock. A machine better than a human being, not physically, but intellectually? The headlines made sure people wondered that and used that to hook them into reading the article, where it bombarded them with facts and figures.
The Los Angeles Times barely mentioned the speed or the figures in the articles I found. Instead it focused on how it will be a great help to troops out fighting wars. This makes complete sense since the purpose of the ENIAC was to do just that. They also tended to call the machine a ‘weird robot,’ which sort of speaks to a fear in the use of these devices. Robots are almost analogous to monsters; if they aren’t helping us, they are taking over the world. There were still stories about how this will help man solve problems, and talk about its technological aspects, but always start right away in telling us how useful this will be for military use.
It makes sense for a country to be enamored with wartime technology. They had just gotten out of a war and a machine boasted as a giant brain could solve problems that might prevent anymore bloodshed would probably seem like a great idea. Computers today are very much presented in this fashion. Access to technology is regarded to be an essential aspect of one’s life, yet there is still this amazement and wonderment in it. It is still seen as a way to better our lives and the lives of others, just as the ENIAC was supposed to better the lives of mathematicians back then.
-(CE)Ian
Articles:
• "Era of 'Thinking Machines' Forecast in UCLA Preview." Los Angeles Times 30 July 1948: 1.
• Lissner, Will. "Mechanical 'Brain' Has Its Troubles." New York Times 14 Dec. 1947: 49.
• "Mechanical Brain Can Work Problems Too Deep For Man." Los Angeles Times 22 Aug. 1949: 24.
Genocide in Rwanda
Exactly fifteen years ago today, the three-month massacre of hundreds of thousands of Tutsi and moderate Hutus began.
While South Africa was celebrating the end of 40 years of apartheid, a mass extermination campaign in Rwanda was in full swing. The Hutu ethnic group, comprising 90 percent of the population, efficiently executed a campaign of ethnic cleansing that resulted in a genocide that the world noticed too late. The United Human Rights Council estimates up to 800,000 deaths.
“Why was there no intervention?” is the question many ask.
Also, why wasn’t this tragedy listed in Newseum’s 100 most newsworthy stories? Finally, how does media coverage and hesitation to use the word “genocide” compare to the situation in Sudan’s region of Darfur now?
One reason for the limited awareness of the enormity of the situation, in both Darfur and Rwanda, is the lack of journalists and foreign presence in the country. The Star Tribune’s article, “Americans, other foreigners flee Rwanda violence,” was published April 11, five days after the Rwanda violence started.
The article details the evacuation of foreign citizens and United Nation employees early on in the genocide, stating that “ethnic violence appeared to slacken” but that a rebel advance on the capital could “tilt the country into a full-scale civil war.” Without reporters present to witness the turmoil of the country, and the use of words like “civil war”, the severity of situation is not fully communicated to the international community.
Currently, it is difficult for foreign journalists to obtain visas in Sudan. Also, as U.S. Marine Brian Steidle wrote in his book “The Devil Came on Horseback”, the African Union forbid him from photographing victims and burned villages in Darfur because his high-end camera was “too imposing”. In both Rwanda and now in Darfur, the misunderstanding of the severity of the situation can be attributed to the lack of reporters on the ground, partly because of the government’s attempts to hide the reality.
Finally, I looked at an article in the Journal Bulletin Washington Bureau: “Pell decries Rwanda’s ‘genocide’ but opposes U.S. invasion”. Published June 14, 1994, the article describes Sen. Claiborne Pell’s belief that the violence in Rwanda was indeed genocide, despite the Clinton administration’s hesitation to classify it as such. However, he believed intervention should be left to the U.N.
“Rwanda is a more remote part of the world than Europe (where the Holocaust took place), and more of our citizens' ancestors came from Europe” he said, in reference to his support for U.S. intervention of the Holocaust but not of Rwanda.
“African solutions to African problems” is an ideology some follow, but no matter what one’s beliefs, the media underestimating the extent of a situation, intentionally or not, can be detrimental to efficient international response. (Which is arguably a reason why the U.S. and the U.N. initially hesitated to call Rwanda a genocide).
I believe this should have been on the list of Newseum’s top stories not only because of the magnitude of the event, but because of the media’s specific role in the interpretation, which arguably didn’t prompt enough international response. The Rwandan genocide is a clear example of how the angle and extent of coverage can effect the public's awareness and understanding of a tragedy.
SOURCES:
http://0-proquest.umi.com.opac.sfsu.edu/pqdweb?index=5&did=575586001&SrchMode=2&sid=3&Fmt=3&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=PQD&TS=1239039147&clientId=17866
http://0 proquest.umi.com.opac.sfsu.edu/pqdweb?index=1&did=54001831&SrchMode=2&sid=1&Fmt=2&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=PQD&TS=1239037695&clientId=17866
http://www.unitedhumanrights.org/Genocide/genocide_in_rwanda.htm
While South Africa was celebrating the end of 40 years of apartheid, a mass extermination campaign in Rwanda was in full swing. The Hutu ethnic group, comprising 90 percent of the population, efficiently executed a campaign of ethnic cleansing that resulted in a genocide that the world noticed too late. The United Human Rights Council estimates up to 800,000 deaths.
“Why was there no intervention?” is the question many ask.
Also, why wasn’t this tragedy listed in Newseum’s 100 most newsworthy stories? Finally, how does media coverage and hesitation to use the word “genocide” compare to the situation in Sudan’s region of Darfur now?
One reason for the limited awareness of the enormity of the situation, in both Darfur and Rwanda, is the lack of journalists and foreign presence in the country. The Star Tribune’s article, “Americans, other foreigners flee Rwanda violence,” was published April 11, five days after the Rwanda violence started.
The article details the evacuation of foreign citizens and United Nation employees early on in the genocide, stating that “ethnic violence appeared to slacken” but that a rebel advance on the capital could “tilt the country into a full-scale civil war.” Without reporters present to witness the turmoil of the country, and the use of words like “civil war”, the severity of situation is not fully communicated to the international community.
Currently, it is difficult for foreign journalists to obtain visas in Sudan. Also, as U.S. Marine Brian Steidle wrote in his book “The Devil Came on Horseback”, the African Union forbid him from photographing victims and burned villages in Darfur because his high-end camera was “too imposing”. In both Rwanda and now in Darfur, the misunderstanding of the severity of the situation can be attributed to the lack of reporters on the ground, partly because of the government’s attempts to hide the reality.
Finally, I looked at an article in the Journal Bulletin Washington Bureau: “Pell decries Rwanda’s ‘genocide’ but opposes U.S. invasion”. Published June 14, 1994, the article describes Sen. Claiborne Pell’s belief that the violence in Rwanda was indeed genocide, despite the Clinton administration’s hesitation to classify it as such. However, he believed intervention should be left to the U.N.
“Rwanda is a more remote part of the world than Europe (where the Holocaust took place), and more of our citizens' ancestors came from Europe” he said, in reference to his support for U.S. intervention of the Holocaust but not of Rwanda.
“African solutions to African problems” is an ideology some follow, but no matter what one’s beliefs, the media underestimating the extent of a situation, intentionally or not, can be detrimental to efficient international response. (Which is arguably a reason why the U.S. and the U.N. initially hesitated to call Rwanda a genocide).
I believe this should have been on the list of Newseum’s top stories not only because of the magnitude of the event, but because of the media’s specific role in the interpretation, which arguably didn’t prompt enough international response. The Rwandan genocide is a clear example of how the angle and extent of coverage can effect the public's awareness and understanding of a tragedy.
SOURCES:
http://0-proquest.umi.com.opac.sfsu.edu/pqdweb?index=5&did=575586001&SrchMode=2&sid=3&Fmt=3&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=PQD&TS=1239039147&clientId=17866
http://0 proquest.umi.com.opac.sfsu.edu/pqdweb?index=1&did=54001831&SrchMode=2&sid=1&Fmt=2&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=PQD&TS=1239037695&clientId=17866
http://www.unitedhumanrights.org/Genocide/genocide_in_rwanda.htm
Apartheid ends in South Africa
Fifteen years ago, the segregated public facilities between racial groups and relocation to barren plots of land and denial of citizenship to black Africans came to an end in South Africa.
The black African population, comprised of nine official languages and dozens of ethnic groups, accounted for nearly 80 percent of the population. However, it was oppressed by the minority ruling party for over forty years.
On April 27, 1994, the first all-inclusive election took place, electing self-proclaimed freedom fighter, Nelson Mandela, as president.
However, the end of apartheid in this former British-colony did not happen overnight. Nor was the negotiation process between the dominating National Party, and Mandela’s ANC (African National Congress) an easy process.
I compared a news article from the New York Times and a story from The Guardian. The NY Times article is a positive hard news story about the election, and the UK editorial is a commentary about South Africa’s future under this new government, analyzing the hurdles South Africa must still overcome in its quest for equality.
In conclusion, the second article provides more background and analysis of apartheid by placing it in historical context, while the American story focuses solely on the result of the 40 year struggle: the election, without providing background leading up to the election.
The NY Time’s article, “ The South African vote: The overview; Mandela proclaims a victory: South Africa is ‘Free at last!’”, published May 3, 1994, only quotes two political figures. The first is Frederik de Klerk, the leader of the National Party which dominated during apartheid’s 40 years reign. The second is Mandela, representing the anti-apartheid struggle. Only positive quotes recognizing the negotiation efforts between the two men are used, as well as quotes explaining the structure of the new power-sharing government.
Details like “a choir of 70 voices erupted into a liberation song” and Mandela toasting to the new South Africa “with a flute of sweet sparkling wine” are details sprinkled throughout the story to create a more cinematic feel. The article reports the statistics of the election and ends with quote by de Klerk, “After so many centuries, all of South Africa is now free.”
By focusing solely on the statistics of the election and using only positive quotes to enhance the “happy-ending” feeling of the story, the article fails to acknowledge the complexity of the relations between faction groups within the equality movement and the concern among the National Party to hand over power in writing a new constitution. Is South Africa really free as de Klerk proclaimed?
This story is reflective of American journalism in the early 1990s because the build-up of drama enhances the “cinematic” feel of the story, while also making sure to report the facts of an event. However, as Lippman argued, reporters needs to provide background of events in their stories and not merely report facts and info without context. For example, Mandela’s over 27 years in prison for his cause was not even mentioned in the story. While all the facts are here, it is the omitting of facts that is a disservice to the public's understanding of this complex transition of power.
The article “A moment of limbo before the dawn of a new epoch” in The Guardian, published May 3, 1994, starts out, “In practice nothing has changed...In theory everything has changed.” This skeptical attitude is arguably a more realistic observation of what was occuring.
The article quotes an officer of Transitional Exec. Council, who provides insight into what will happen to the “black homelands” that existed under apartheid. An ANC lawyer says the transition process will be “plenty of confusion, a fair amount of corruption and a great deal of frustration. But in the end we'll muddle through - we always do."
Unlike the first article, the UK story doesn’t quote political leaders but instead officials with insight into the power structures of the government. Instead of hailing the election as a triumph over evil, it prompts examination of the future effects and difficulties of the new regime.
SOURCES:
http://www.nytimes.com/1994/05/03/world/south-african-vote-overview-mandela-proclaims-victory-south-africa-free-last.html?scp=8&sq=South%20Africa%20votes%201994&st=cse&pagewanted=1
http://0-proquest.umi.com.opac.sfsu.edu/pqdweb?index=0&did=69466554&SrchMode=2&sid=2&Fmt=3&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=PQD&TS=1239166701&clientId=17866
The black African population, comprised of nine official languages and dozens of ethnic groups, accounted for nearly 80 percent of the population. However, it was oppressed by the minority ruling party for over forty years.
On April 27, 1994, the first all-inclusive election took place, electing self-proclaimed freedom fighter, Nelson Mandela, as president.
However, the end of apartheid in this former British-colony did not happen overnight. Nor was the negotiation process between the dominating National Party, and Mandela’s ANC (African National Congress) an easy process.
I compared a news article from the New York Times and a story from The Guardian. The NY Times article is a positive hard news story about the election, and the UK editorial is a commentary about South Africa’s future under this new government, analyzing the hurdles South Africa must still overcome in its quest for equality.
In conclusion, the second article provides more background and analysis of apartheid by placing it in historical context, while the American story focuses solely on the result of the 40 year struggle: the election, without providing background leading up to the election.
The NY Time’s article, “ The South African vote: The overview; Mandela proclaims a victory: South Africa is ‘Free at last!’”, published May 3, 1994, only quotes two political figures. The first is Frederik de Klerk, the leader of the National Party which dominated during apartheid’s 40 years reign. The second is Mandela, representing the anti-apartheid struggle. Only positive quotes recognizing the negotiation efforts between the two men are used, as well as quotes explaining the structure of the new power-sharing government.
Details like “a choir of 70 voices erupted into a liberation song” and Mandela toasting to the new South Africa “with a flute of sweet sparkling wine” are details sprinkled throughout the story to create a more cinematic feel. The article reports the statistics of the election and ends with quote by de Klerk, “After so many centuries, all of South Africa is now free.”
By focusing solely on the statistics of the election and using only positive quotes to enhance the “happy-ending” feeling of the story, the article fails to acknowledge the complexity of the relations between faction groups within the equality movement and the concern among the National Party to hand over power in writing a new constitution. Is South Africa really free as de Klerk proclaimed?
This story is reflective of American journalism in the early 1990s because the build-up of drama enhances the “cinematic” feel of the story, while also making sure to report the facts of an event. However, as Lippman argued, reporters needs to provide background of events in their stories and not merely report facts and info without context. For example, Mandela’s over 27 years in prison for his cause was not even mentioned in the story. While all the facts are here, it is the omitting of facts that is a disservice to the public's understanding of this complex transition of power.
The article “A moment of limbo before the dawn of a new epoch” in The Guardian, published May 3, 1994, starts out, “In practice nothing has changed...In theory everything has changed.” This skeptical attitude is arguably a more realistic observation of what was occuring.
The article quotes an officer of Transitional Exec. Council, who provides insight into what will happen to the “black homelands” that existed under apartheid. An ANC lawyer says the transition process will be “plenty of confusion, a fair amount of corruption and a great deal of frustration. But in the end we'll muddle through - we always do."
Unlike the first article, the UK story doesn’t quote political leaders but instead officials with insight into the power structures of the government. Instead of hailing the election as a triumph over evil, it prompts examination of the future effects and difficulties of the new regime.
SOURCES:
http://www.nytimes.com/1994/05/03/world/south-african-vote-overview-mandela-proclaims-victory-south-africa-free-last.html?scp=8&sq=South%20Africa%20votes%201994&st=cse&pagewanted=1
http://0-proquest.umi.com.opac.sfsu.edu/pqdweb?index=0&did=69466554&SrchMode=2&sid=2&Fmt=3&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=PQD&TS=1239166701&clientId=17866
Sunday, April 5, 2009
The Chernobyl Disaster
On April 26 1986 a nuclear reactor at the Chernobyl plant in the Soviet Union exploded. Today the Chernobyl disaster is considered to be the worst nuclear power plant disaster in history, and the only level 7 nuclear accident on the International Nuclear Event Scale.
I looked at two articles from 1986 in the NY Times and one article from the BBC from April 28 1986, the day the Soviets announced the accident.
The article in the Times from April 28, “Soviet Announces Nuclear Accident at Electric Plant,” By Serge Schmemann, was printed on the front page in the far upper right column with a small graphic of a map depicting the location of the Chernobyl plant. The article shared the page with stories such as: Judge Puts Off Gotti Crime Trial Until August to Revamp the Jury, Cuomo Presents Legislative Plan to Combat Craft, and New Ring of Suburbs Springs Up Around City. Two of the other articles had larger photos than the Chernoble graphic.
Schmemann referred to the Soviet announcement as being, “terse,” and wrote that a Soviet dispatch followed the announcement saying that there had been many nuclear mishaps in the United States and that an American antinuclear group registered 2,300 accidents, breakdowns and other faults in 1979.
Schmemann writes that, “The practice of focusing on disasters elsewhere when one occurs in the Soviet Union is so common that after watching a report on Soviet television about a catastrophe abroad, Russians often call Western friends to find out whether something has happened in the Soviet Union.”
The article cited Tass, the Soviet Government Press Agency, the Whitehouse Chief of Staff, a Swedish diplomat, the Swedish Minister of Energy, Birgitta Dahl, a Swedish official at the Institute for Protection Against Radiation, Scandinavian authorities, and United States experts.
Schmemann also wrote that the Soviets did not admit to the nuclear disaster until hours after Sweden, Finland and Denmark reported unusually high radioactivity levels in their skies and that Scandinavian authorities said the radioactivity levels did not pose any danger. The writer of the article wrote that although this was the first nuclear accident that the Soviets admitted to, the U.S. believes there were two others.
According to the NYT article by Schmemann, the full extent of the damage was not yet clear, but that U.S. experts said that although it could be environmentally disastrous, it would probably pose no danger outside of the Soviet Union.
In this article, casualties are not mentioned. Schmemann briefly mentions that 25,000 to 30,000 people live in a settlement surrounding Chernobyl. The article’s focus is on relations between the Soviet Union and the U.S. and The Soviet Union and Scandinavia. The article published on the same day found on the BBC’s “On This Day” page, titled “Soviets admit nuclear accident,” paints a different picture. The BBC article focuses on the possible casualties, the potential for radiation sickness, and the construction of the nuclear reactor. While Schmemann’s article downplays the fallout that reached Sweden, the BBC article reports that, “The discharge of radioactivity was so great that by the time the fallout reached Sweden, 1,000 miles away, it was still powerful enough to register twice the natural level of radioactivity in the atmosphere.”
The NYT article states that the levels in Sweden were 30 to 40 percent higher than normal. It seems to downplay the nuclear disaster aspect and highlight the bad attitude of the Soviets.
The NYT article was concentrated on the behavior of the Soviets and the fact that they initially denied any problem when Sweden suspected that the radiation was coming from the Soviet Union.
Neither article gives much information on casualties because it was difficult at the time to get that information from the Soviets. Tensions between the U.S. and the Soviet Union were high during this time and that is reflected in the NYT article.
In a NYT article by Stuart Diamond from August 1986, Diamond wrote that experts were disagreeing over the expected Cancer deaths from Chernobyl. Some experts were saying that they had misinterpreted Soviet data and that estimated Cancer victims would be far less than they had originally estimated. Diamond wrote that, “The Americans reacted with anger to the lowered projections and said there was an attempt to deflate the figures out of concern that public reaction would hurt the nuclear power industry around the world.”
The Chernobyl disaster and its aftermath and the victims are still written about by journalists today who still question the accuracy of Russian casualty reports.
Both NYT writers give viewpoints from both sides of the issue, but the writer’s perspective is evident in both articles. During this time journalists were encouraged to be objective just as they are encouraged to be objective today. Although journalists often include opposing viewpoints in their articles it’s common to get a sense of the writers perspective even today.
Sources:
http://www.nytimes.com/learning/general/onthisday/big/0426.html#article
http://www.nytimes.com/1986/08/29/world/chernobyl-s-toll-in-future-at-issue.html?sec=health&&fta=y
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/april/28/newsid_2500000/2500975.stm
I looked at two articles from 1986 in the NY Times and one article from the BBC from April 28 1986, the day the Soviets announced the accident.
The article in the Times from April 28, “Soviet Announces Nuclear Accident at Electric Plant,” By Serge Schmemann, was printed on the front page in the far upper right column with a small graphic of a map depicting the location of the Chernobyl plant. The article shared the page with stories such as: Judge Puts Off Gotti Crime Trial Until August to Revamp the Jury, Cuomo Presents Legislative Plan to Combat Craft, and New Ring of Suburbs Springs Up Around City. Two of the other articles had larger photos than the Chernoble graphic.
Schmemann referred to the Soviet announcement as being, “terse,” and wrote that a Soviet dispatch followed the announcement saying that there had been many nuclear mishaps in the United States and that an American antinuclear group registered 2,300 accidents, breakdowns and other faults in 1979.
Schmemann writes that, “The practice of focusing on disasters elsewhere when one occurs in the Soviet Union is so common that after watching a report on Soviet television about a catastrophe abroad, Russians often call Western friends to find out whether something has happened in the Soviet Union.”
The article cited Tass, the Soviet Government Press Agency, the Whitehouse Chief of Staff, a Swedish diplomat, the Swedish Minister of Energy, Birgitta Dahl, a Swedish official at the Institute for Protection Against Radiation, Scandinavian authorities, and United States experts.
Schmemann also wrote that the Soviets did not admit to the nuclear disaster until hours after Sweden, Finland and Denmark reported unusually high radioactivity levels in their skies and that Scandinavian authorities said the radioactivity levels did not pose any danger. The writer of the article wrote that although this was the first nuclear accident that the Soviets admitted to, the U.S. believes there were two others.
According to the NYT article by Schmemann, the full extent of the damage was not yet clear, but that U.S. experts said that although it could be environmentally disastrous, it would probably pose no danger outside of the Soviet Union.
In this article, casualties are not mentioned. Schmemann briefly mentions that 25,000 to 30,000 people live in a settlement surrounding Chernobyl. The article’s focus is on relations between the Soviet Union and the U.S. and The Soviet Union and Scandinavia. The article published on the same day found on the BBC’s “On This Day” page, titled “Soviets admit nuclear accident,” paints a different picture. The BBC article focuses on the possible casualties, the potential for radiation sickness, and the construction of the nuclear reactor. While Schmemann’s article downplays the fallout that reached Sweden, the BBC article reports that, “The discharge of radioactivity was so great that by the time the fallout reached Sweden, 1,000 miles away, it was still powerful enough to register twice the natural level of radioactivity in the atmosphere.”
The NYT article states that the levels in Sweden were 30 to 40 percent higher than normal. It seems to downplay the nuclear disaster aspect and highlight the bad attitude of the Soviets.
The NYT article was concentrated on the behavior of the Soviets and the fact that they initially denied any problem when Sweden suspected that the radiation was coming from the Soviet Union.
Neither article gives much information on casualties because it was difficult at the time to get that information from the Soviets. Tensions between the U.S. and the Soviet Union were high during this time and that is reflected in the NYT article.
In a NYT article by Stuart Diamond from August 1986, Diamond wrote that experts were disagreeing over the expected Cancer deaths from Chernobyl. Some experts were saying that they had misinterpreted Soviet data and that estimated Cancer victims would be far less than they had originally estimated. Diamond wrote that, “The Americans reacted with anger to the lowered projections and said there was an attempt to deflate the figures out of concern that public reaction would hurt the nuclear power industry around the world.”
The Chernobyl disaster and its aftermath and the victims are still written about by journalists today who still question the accuracy of Russian casualty reports.
Both NYT writers give viewpoints from both sides of the issue, but the writer’s perspective is evident in both articles. During this time journalists were encouraged to be objective just as they are encouraged to be objective today. Although journalists often include opposing viewpoints in their articles it’s common to get a sense of the writers perspective even today.
Sources:
http://www.nytimes.com/learning/general/onthisday/big/0426.html#article
http://www.nytimes.com/1986/08/29/world/chernobyl-s-toll-in-future-at-issue.html?sec=health&&fta=y
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/april/28/newsid_2500000/2500975.stm
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)