Humanity is inherently afraid of the unknown, the different. When Dolly the sheep was born through cloning in 1996, no one knew how to react. The media formed the public’s opinion of the Dolly discovery and unfortunately, their bias and the affect it had on the public’s opinion greatly affected the ability for more cloning research in the future.
Dolly, the first successfully cloned sheep, was “born” on July 5th, 1996 from a somatic cell through the process of nuclear transfer. The discovery was made by Ian Wilmut and Keith Campbell. Other scientists at the Roslin Institute in Edinburgh, Scotland where the experiment took place were unsure of how to react to the findings or whether to make them public so they were hidden for months before released to the media. The public reacted with more concern about the moral implications than praise for the scientific significance of the discovery itself. The media played a huge role in shaping the publics view, and with condescending and sarcastic coverage, the public simply followed suit.
The first article I looked at was “Hello Dolly”, a piece that appeared on page A of the San Francisco Examiner. The article carries a sarcastic undertone and finishes with:
“Although Wilmut found ‘no clinical reason’ to clone humans, there's also no clinical reason for, say, playing major league baseball. We can now assume that it's only a shake of a lamb's tale (no more puns!) before the Giants scrape a few cells from the arm of Willie Mays and make a championship team of him.”
Reporting this as news is appalling, not only to the Examiner itself but to journalism standards in general. Written with a skeptical bias, this piece only further perpetuated society’s negative views of this discovery.
The next article I examined was a New York Times article that seems so unlike the New York Times; it has fallen into the subjective and obnoxious category. The article is titled “With Cloning of a Sheep, the Ethical Ground Shifts” and though it gives a lot of information, the slant of information is obvious as is the bias behind the writing. It starts out with “When a scientist whose goal is to turn animals into drug factories…” which is a presumption all by itself. Is this something the doctor has been quoted to have said? No, sadly, it’s the writer’s opinion rearing its ugly head. The article goes on to talk about the way in which Dolly was cloned and ways in which this could be harmful or beneficial to society. He makes the implication that cloning is simply a step away from genetic engineering and he did this probably knowing full well that genetic engineering was a hot button issue of the time and thought of as highly controversial.
Both of these articles represent the bias of the time and how the media’s view of an event can shape the publics opinion of it. If the media had offered a fair view of cloning, perhaps cloning research would’ve been allowed sooner and who knows what types of cures we may have been able to come up with. It is an example of a time when newspapers failed to question that status quo and reinforced society’s fears and ideals instead of challenging them.
Saturday, April 18, 2009
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Apartheid in South Africa
The end to apartheid in South Africa was a turning point in American history and media coverage. While apartheid was a system of legal segregation in South Africa from 1948 to the early 1990s that separated racial groups based on color, the system gave considerably substantial privileges to races of European origin. While blacks were prohibited from voting, attending white establishments, restricted to separate parts of the country, and widely discriminated against, the termination of the white political system ensured a higher level of equality that had not been demonstrated prior.
With the decision to end apartheid in South Africa, news coverage of the event was enormous. As many newspapers, magazines, editorials, and broadcast institutions provided extensive coverage of the event, reporting methods, framing of the stories, and accuracy of the event varied amongst publications. Although many were delighted with the decision to end apartheid, others were angered over the pronouncement. Unsurprisingly, biases and skewed reporting were actively present within certain publications, while other news coverage of the event seemed to be void of slanted prejudices.
One article produced by the Chicago Tribune effectively reported the event with precision, depth, and fairness. The Article clearly painted a picture of the incident from the perspective of both sides, and efficiently allowed the audience to formulate their own understanding of the conclusion. The piece of writing not only talked about the previous political structure that was in place, but also illustrated the difficult struggle and commitment that surrounded the passing of legislature. With eight quotes from political figures, officials, and the community, the article was well rounded and diverse. The only questionable motive of the piece, was why the writer concluded the story with a quote that was in obvious favor of the decision. Other than that, the article appeared to not show partiality to either side.
While The Chicago Tribune produced work of unbiased material, the San Francisco Chronicle appeared to show more favoritism in the verdict. Producing an article that clearly showed their support to the decision to end apartheid, the San Francisco Chronicle came across more liberal and opinionated. While the framework of the piece was similar in structure to that of the Chicago Tribune, the seven quotes that were provided, illustrated the pleased response to the end of apartheid. Noting the events of the decision, the history of South Africa, the political establishment of the past, and the end of segregation, the San Francisco Chronicle provide a plethora of information to their audience. Although the San Francisco Chronicle appeared biased in their publication, the article strongly accomplished the goal of illustrating how positive this new law would be. Concluding with a heavily visual statement, the San Francisco Chronicle made mention of Rensburg’s voice that was thick with emotion, and the recollection of the first white settlers in 1652.
Chicago Tribune - Constitution OKD Amid Tumult. 1993
San Francisco Chronicle - South OKs Charter to White Rule/Constitution gives blacks equal rights for first time. 1993
BIll Clinton Impeachment
From the beginning of the first newspaper and continuing until the present, news has been a source of debate, sensationalism, bias, political corruption, and a flood of events that have changed society and the image of news coverage forever.
One of many events that have altered history, significantly, the Bill Clinton impeachment trial is one of the more recent and memorable occurrences. From the stained blue dress to the taped Lewinsky conversations, from the cigar jokes told by Jay Leno to the political icons that fought for impeachment, the actions of former president Bill Clinton were written about and discussed all over the world.
One publication that provided extensive coverage of the incident was the Los Angels Times. While the Los Angeles Times reported a multitude of stories regarding the impeachment trial, one particular published article created a sense of bias opinion, provided zero sources or quotes, and left the reader questioning the authenticity of the piece of writing at hand.
While the article discussed the understanding of American politics, the possible economic severity of Clinton’s removal from office, the charges of perjury, obstruction of justice, and the abuse of power, there were no sources cited and the frame of the story was wildly left open for interpretation.
Although there may be a number of reasons why the framework of this article differs so greatly from the articles typically produced by the Los Angeles Times, it is indisputable, that publications of other competing newspapers provided more credibility and cemented framework than that of the mentioned above.
In addition to the Los Angeles Times covering the historic events of the Clinton scandal, the Houston Chronicle was actively covering the incident as well.
Contrary to the Los Angeles Times’ article, the Houston Chronicle provided an abundance of quotes, sources, un-biased opinion, and demonstrated effective and accurate reporting. Because the Houston Chronicle provided over ten sources, six quotes, and eluded readership of personal biases, the framework of their article proved to be successful and more reliable.
Although the article from the Houston Chronicle also focused on the charges of Clinton, the taped conversations between Lewinsky and Tripp, and the republican team of case managers, the in-depth information provided throughout the piece established a sense of trust and unswerving belief in what was being reported.
While the two publications show difference in reporting style and technique, they both demonstrate the sense of urgency in reporting sensational, politically prompted, entertaining, and history making news. Although the Clinton trial was only the second impeachment of a president in history, bets can be made that it will not be the last, and that news publications will be right there to tell the story.
-Los Angeles Times 1998. The nation; Impeachment doesn’t matter?
-The Houston Chronicle Dec. 30, 1998. New Clinton trial issue: witnesses/house impeachment strategy conflicts with senate’s plans.
Thursday, April 9, 2009
Allies Invade France on D-Day
Taylor KennedyJour 300D-Day, or the Allied invasion France, was a campaign that became altered by many unforeseen complexities, many of which resulted in much confusion and loss. The brutal events that took place on the beaches in France on June 6th, 1944 have since been foreclosed, written about, and made into movies and documentaries, but reading newspapers at the time might have left you with a completely different notion.
“Churchill Says Losses Less than Anticipated” were the letters emblazoned across the Los Angeles times on June 7th, 1944, the day following the D-Day invasion. The article quotes and summarizes a press release given by British Prime Minister Winston Churchill in which he declares the invasion of the beaches in France had taken place in “a thoroughly satisfactory manner.” Afterwards, Churchill outlines the major points of the operation and claims each had gone off without a hitch. He claims the beach and air landings of troops were on point and successful, aerial bombings had been on target, and “that tactical surprise had been achieved over the Germans.” Churchill’s statement ends with a gratuitous salute to American Generals Eisenhower and Montgomery and an ode to the “ardor and spirit of the troops… when they were embarking.” Had you been reading the L.A. Times on June 7th, 1944 you would have been lead to believe that perhaps nothing out of the ordinary occurred during the D-Day invasion.
Soon enough, however, articles began to surface that painted the true grotesque picture of the D-Day invasion. An article that appeared in the L.A. Times on October 21, 1945 features the first-hand account of Lt. Col. Randolph Leigh who says that “almost nothing went according to schedule” on D-Day. Leigh tells of how foggy weather caused Allied ships to miss their landmarks, letting the troops ashore directly into German fire. Air Force bombing plans were altered at the last second causing the bombs to be dropped half a mile inland, away from hostile forces and onto civilian territory. Naval bombardment also did nothing for the troops in taking out hillside guns, as most of nine thousand rockets missed their marks. All this confusion led to “large losses” before the Allies finally took the beach fronts. At the end of the day “1127 American Army and Navy officers and men lie dead, 3671 are wounded or injured, 24 are captured, and 2674 are missing.” Not exactly the perfect operation that Churchill had described.The coverage of Churchill’s press release was typical of journalism in America in 1944. Franklin D. Roosevelt had long since established the trend of government agencies feeding the “official” story to the press, and in a hurry to get to print first, reporters would print the releases almost word for word. This led to purely objective articles but when considering the source, it is not a far out allegation that government manipulation of reporters occurred. Henry Luce, publisher of Time, Life, and Fortune, claimed the freedom of the press “was no longer self-evident” as it was controlled by “big government” through publicity activities. Later, Joseph McCarthy would build a career on this exact technique of rushing official stories into newspapers. In most cases, there would be no time for a reporter to do a more investigative article on the subject, and it makes sense that more in-depth coverage of D-Day did not occur until about a year later, after the end of the war. SOURCES: http://0-proquest.umi.com.opac.sfsu.edu/pqdweb?did=411678661&sid=6&Fmt=10&clientId=17866&RQT=309&VName=HNPhttp://0-proquest.umi.com.opac.sfsu.edu/pqdweb?did=413475801&sid=8&Fmt=10&clientId=17866&RQT=309&VName=HNP
“Churchill Says Losses Less than Anticipated” were the letters emblazoned across the Los Angeles times on June 7th, 1944, the day following the D-Day invasion. The article quotes and summarizes a press release given by British Prime Minister Winston Churchill in which he declares the invasion of the beaches in France had taken place in “a thoroughly satisfactory manner.” Afterwards, Churchill outlines the major points of the operation and claims each had gone off without a hitch. He claims the beach and air landings of troops were on point and successful, aerial bombings had been on target, and “that tactical surprise had been achieved over the Germans.” Churchill’s statement ends with a gratuitous salute to American Generals Eisenhower and Montgomery and an ode to the “ardor and spirit of the troops… when they were embarking.” Had you been reading the L.A. Times on June 7th, 1944 you would have been lead to believe that perhaps nothing out of the ordinary occurred during the D-Day invasion.
Soon enough, however, articles began to surface that painted the true grotesque picture of the D-Day invasion. An article that appeared in the L.A. Times on October 21, 1945 features the first-hand account of Lt. Col. Randolph Leigh who says that “almost nothing went according to schedule” on D-Day. Leigh tells of how foggy weather caused Allied ships to miss their landmarks, letting the troops ashore directly into German fire. Air Force bombing plans were altered at the last second causing the bombs to be dropped half a mile inland, away from hostile forces and onto civilian territory. Naval bombardment also did nothing for the troops in taking out hillside guns, as most of nine thousand rockets missed their marks. All this confusion led to “large losses” before the Allies finally took the beach fronts. At the end of the day “1127 American Army and Navy officers and men lie dead, 3671 are wounded or injured, 24 are captured, and 2674 are missing.” Not exactly the perfect operation that Churchill had described.The coverage of Churchill’s press release was typical of journalism in America in 1944. Franklin D. Roosevelt had long since established the trend of government agencies feeding the “official” story to the press, and in a hurry to get to print first, reporters would print the releases almost word for word. This led to purely objective articles but when considering the source, it is not a far out allegation that government manipulation of reporters occurred. Henry Luce, publisher of Time, Life, and Fortune, claimed the freedom of the press “was no longer self-evident” as it was controlled by “big government” through publicity activities. Later, Joseph McCarthy would build a career on this exact technique of rushing official stories into newspapers. In most cases, there would be no time for a reporter to do a more investigative article on the subject, and it makes sense that more in-depth coverage of D-Day did not occur until about a year later, after the end of the war. SOURCES: http://0-proquest.umi.com.opac.sfsu.edu/pqdweb?did=411678661&sid=6&Fmt=10&clientId=17866&RQT=309&VName=HNPhttp://0-proquest.umi.com.opac.sfsu.edu/pqdweb?did=413475801&sid=8&Fmt=10&clientId=17866&RQT=309&VName=HNP
1964- Beatles Tour USA
Taylor Kennedy
Jour 300
In 1964 The Beatles took America by storm when they came across the Atlantic to play their British rock music on their first U.S. tour. In doing so, the four young chaps from Liverpool opened the flood gates for many other British musicians and brought about rapid changes in popular youth culture. At the time journalists, along with most everyone else, were torn as to whether The Beatles, with their long hair and teenage aimed music, were just a harmless pop band or a threat to American society. This difference of opinions is reflected in the news stories written in 1964.
The first news article I found entitled “Americans Decide The Beatles Are Harmless” was published in the London Times on February 10, 1964. The article explains the highly built up image of The Beatles and goes on to state that once Americans “had satisfied their highly stimulated curiosities about these four remarkable young men,” the feeling was “one of relief”. The band had basically been given a bad reputation, to the point that Americans were outraged about them without having ever seen them play. Fears were also heightened because in 1964 the last major teen occurred with Elvis. When another craze was finally adopted by teenagers; its results would be “uncontrollable.” Once The Beatles were televised from “coast to coast” in America, people dispelled rumors. The article quotes a New York critic saying, “We can put away our spray guns. The Beatles are harmless.” Another quote from the Washington Post explains that “The Beatles are not such bad chaps after all. They behaved in a more civilized manner than most of our own rock-and-roll heroes.” An interesting point in the article links The Beatles to better British-American understanding. The author believed that the band had opened Americans eyes to the merits of foreign nations. After the long and arduous cold war, perhaps Americans had lost touch with the outside world and the Beatles were remedying this. The author even ends this point by proposing that, in bringing this new understanding, The Beatles may perhaps help America’s problem with Cuba.
The second article I found seems cynical, even bitter about the arrival of the Beatles in America. It is entitled “After Beatles Came the Deluge,” and appeared in the Los Angeles Times on December 6, 1964. The article basically addresses the British Invasion before it was called that. In winning over adults and disarming critics, The Beatles opened “the door for all their hairy mates back home. The blokes are entering the door by the dozen now.” The author’s use of British slang serves to belittle the bands, making them sound silly. The term “hairy” refers to their longer hairstyles of the Beatles and others which many American teenagers were already emulating at the time, as “suddenly, almost anything British was desirable to American teen-agers.” The article goes on to describe one of the bands that followed The Beatles into America, The Rolling Stones. “The Stones are not handsome or even cute. One of them looks like a chimpanzee. Two look like very ugly Radcliffe girls. One resembles the encyclopedia drawings of pithecanthropus erectus.” The irony is that this obviously unsavory description of The Stones probably did more to heighten their popularity than to belittle them, as they were publicized to be the ugly antithesis of the Beatles. The article ends by assuring the American public that rock and roll is not taking over the music industry by summoning record sales of the year. The author points out that Sinatra and big band record sales were equal to that of “teen beat” groups like The Beatles and The Stones. What the author fails to realize, however, is that the popularity of these rock bands had only just begun earlier that year and would rise steadily for the rest of the sixties while also reforming teen culture into the “adversary culture” by 1965.
These two articles are composed very differently and leave the reader with different meanings. Firstly, the London article quotes many American papers and makes the point that the Beatles had been accepted fully in America. Perhaps in showing a few examples where American papers had accepted the Beatles the author felt he had enough to make Londoners believe that this was really the case. The second article, however, shows that The Beatles were still met with much resistance, and would be for much of their careers. Secondly, it is clear in reading these two stories that the London article championed the Beatles while the Los Angeles article reviled them. This discrepancy of ideas represents a change in journalism that occurred in the sixties. More and more people were becoming disheartened with the government. Just “getting the facts” or the official story was not enough to hold people over anymore. “…objectivity in journalism, came to be looked on as the most insidious bias of all. For objectivity reproduced a vision of social reality which refused to examine the basic structures of power and privilege.” A shift toward more interpretive journalism was occurring. As a result, we get two articles that leave the reader with exact opposite interpretations of The Beatles in America.
SOURCES: http://0-infotrac.galegroup.com.opac.sfsu.edu/itw/infomark/946/453/62214328w16/purl=rc1_TTDA_0_CS136406603&dyn=7!zoom_2?sw_aep=sfsu_main
http://0-proquest.umi.com.opac.sfsu.edu/pqdweb?did=472388452&sid=4&Fmt=10&clientId=17866&RQT=309&VName=HNP
Jour 300
In 1964 The Beatles took America by storm when they came across the Atlantic to play their British rock music on their first U.S. tour. In doing so, the four young chaps from Liverpool opened the flood gates for many other British musicians and brought about rapid changes in popular youth culture. At the time journalists, along with most everyone else, were torn as to whether The Beatles, with their long hair and teenage aimed music, were just a harmless pop band or a threat to American society. This difference of opinions is reflected in the news stories written in 1964.
The first news article I found entitled “Americans Decide The Beatles Are Harmless” was published in the London Times on February 10, 1964. The article explains the highly built up image of The Beatles and goes on to state that once Americans “had satisfied their highly stimulated curiosities about these four remarkable young men,” the feeling was “one of relief”. The band had basically been given a bad reputation, to the point that Americans were outraged about them without having ever seen them play. Fears were also heightened because in 1964 the last major teen occurred with Elvis. When another craze was finally adopted by teenagers; its results would be “uncontrollable.” Once The Beatles were televised from “coast to coast” in America, people dispelled rumors. The article quotes a New York critic saying, “We can put away our spray guns. The Beatles are harmless.” Another quote from the Washington Post explains that “The Beatles are not such bad chaps after all. They behaved in a more civilized manner than most of our own rock-and-roll heroes.” An interesting point in the article links The Beatles to better British-American understanding. The author believed that the band had opened Americans eyes to the merits of foreign nations. After the long and arduous cold war, perhaps Americans had lost touch with the outside world and the Beatles were remedying this. The author even ends this point by proposing that, in bringing this new understanding, The Beatles may perhaps help America’s problem with Cuba.
The second article I found seems cynical, even bitter about the arrival of the Beatles in America. It is entitled “After Beatles Came the Deluge,” and appeared in the Los Angeles Times on December 6, 1964. The article basically addresses the British Invasion before it was called that. In winning over adults and disarming critics, The Beatles opened “the door for all their hairy mates back home. The blokes are entering the door by the dozen now.” The author’s use of British slang serves to belittle the bands, making them sound silly. The term “hairy” refers to their longer hairstyles of the Beatles and others which many American teenagers were already emulating at the time, as “suddenly, almost anything British was desirable to American teen-agers.” The article goes on to describe one of the bands that followed The Beatles into America, The Rolling Stones. “The Stones are not handsome or even cute. One of them looks like a chimpanzee. Two look like very ugly Radcliffe girls. One resembles the encyclopedia drawings of pithecanthropus erectus.” The irony is that this obviously unsavory description of The Stones probably did more to heighten their popularity than to belittle them, as they were publicized to be the ugly antithesis of the Beatles. The article ends by assuring the American public that rock and roll is not taking over the music industry by summoning record sales of the year. The author points out that Sinatra and big band record sales were equal to that of “teen beat” groups like The Beatles and The Stones. What the author fails to realize, however, is that the popularity of these rock bands had only just begun earlier that year and would rise steadily for the rest of the sixties while also reforming teen culture into the “adversary culture” by 1965.
These two articles are composed very differently and leave the reader with different meanings. Firstly, the London article quotes many American papers and makes the point that the Beatles had been accepted fully in America. Perhaps in showing a few examples where American papers had accepted the Beatles the author felt he had enough to make Londoners believe that this was really the case. The second article, however, shows that The Beatles were still met with much resistance, and would be for much of their careers. Secondly, it is clear in reading these two stories that the London article championed the Beatles while the Los Angeles article reviled them. This discrepancy of ideas represents a change in journalism that occurred in the sixties. More and more people were becoming disheartened with the government. Just “getting the facts” or the official story was not enough to hold people over anymore. “…objectivity in journalism, came to be looked on as the most insidious bias of all. For objectivity reproduced a vision of social reality which refused to examine the basic structures of power and privilege.” A shift toward more interpretive journalism was occurring. As a result, we get two articles that leave the reader with exact opposite interpretations of The Beatles in America.
SOURCES: http://0-infotrac.galegroup.com.opac.sfsu.edu/itw/infomark/946/453/62214328w16/purl=rc1_TTDA_0_CS136406603&dyn=7!zoom_2?sw_aep=sfsu_main
http://0-proquest.umi.com.opac.sfsu.edu/pqdweb?did=472388452&sid=4&Fmt=10&clientId=17866&RQT=309&VName=HNP
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
Tragedy Struck "Unsinkable" Titanic
The staggering story of the “unsinkable” Titanic falling down deep into the depths of the Atlantic Ocean will forever be embedded in our minds as a tragedy that stole many lives. Reading the articles that were written about this event by the Washington Post and the San Francisco Chronicle were both very interesting. Unfortunately, since the writers were not present during the sad sinking of the ocean liner, it was difficult for them to lay out the scene for the reader, which was expected. But I do feel that the San Francisco Chronicle did a better job than the Washington Post because I felt that while both articles were successful in laying out many facts and quotes and information for the reader, the San Francisco Chronicle executed it better. And because it was difficult for the scene to be painted for the reader by the writer, the Chronicle was able to embellish the story with some sentences that did draw the reader’s imagination to vaguely envision the starry night with the disappearing ship.
With such a colossal story as this, I think it is important to not just lay out the facts because most newspapers will all have the same facts anyways, but to also conjure emotions and some sort of empathy as well. With the case of the Titanic, people will read the stories and should be moved by the disastrous event that occurred and be shocked at how many did not survive the night. The eeriness should breath out from the newspaper and really grab the reader, which these articles do as best that they can.
It also shows effective how much information both papers have, especially the Washington Post. With the massive flow of facts, the reader can fully comprehend what has just happened even if there are not really familiar with ships or anything of the sort. I think it was smart to include photographs, names, and all of the bulk of the incident as long as the force of the story isn’t dulled by it, in these cases I don’t believe that it was. And sources were named, although it was difficult to get things completely verifiable.
People of that time truly believed that the ocean liner, Titanic, would be unsinkable. And so, the public was completely in shock of the news of its sinking, which was definitely an angle that the newspapers took in writing the stories. Both papers tapped into how shocked the public would be in discovering what had happened and how devastating it was that only a fraction of the passengers aboard the Titanic were saved. The irony being revealed in the papers of how warnings were ignored, the speed of the ship was nearing risky, how lies were said to appease surrounding ship, it all added to the irony and the tragedy that just befell the world. The coverage of both papers were exceptionally done and it went in their favor to add any details of controversy and irony to garnish the story with a little bit more tragedy.
LINER TITANIC RAMS ICEBERG :Largest Vessel Afloat Sinking Off Newfoundland. VIRGINIAS SPEEDS TO AID Women Being Taken Off in the Lifeboats. MANY NOTABLES ABOARD Maj. Butt, President Taft's Military Aid; C.M. Hays, J. Bruce Ismay, W.T. Stead, Isidor Straus, and Others Among Passengers -- Steamer Olympic Asked to Find Sister Ship -- Other Liners Going to Aid of Disabled Ves- sel Off the Banks of Newfoundland. Start of First Trip Marred by an Ac- cident at Southampton.. (1912, April 15). The Washington Post (1877-1954),p. 1. Retrieved April 9, 2009, from ProQuest Historical Newspapers The Washington Post (1877 - 1992) database. (Document ID: 141451462).
San Francisco Chronicle (1869-Current File); Apr 16, 1912; ProQuest Historical Newspapers The San Francisco Chronicle (1865-1922)
pg. 1
With such a colossal story as this, I think it is important to not just lay out the facts because most newspapers will all have the same facts anyways, but to also conjure emotions and some sort of empathy as well. With the case of the Titanic, people will read the stories and should be moved by the disastrous event that occurred and be shocked at how many did not survive the night. The eeriness should breath out from the newspaper and really grab the reader, which these articles do as best that they can.
It also shows effective how much information both papers have, especially the Washington Post. With the massive flow of facts, the reader can fully comprehend what has just happened even if there are not really familiar with ships or anything of the sort. I think it was smart to include photographs, names, and all of the bulk of the incident as long as the force of the story isn’t dulled by it, in these cases I don’t believe that it was. And sources were named, although it was difficult to get things completely verifiable.
People of that time truly believed that the ocean liner, Titanic, would be unsinkable. And so, the public was completely in shock of the news of its sinking, which was definitely an angle that the newspapers took in writing the stories. Both papers tapped into how shocked the public would be in discovering what had happened and how devastating it was that only a fraction of the passengers aboard the Titanic were saved. The irony being revealed in the papers of how warnings were ignored, the speed of the ship was nearing risky, how lies were said to appease surrounding ship, it all added to the irony and the tragedy that just befell the world. The coverage of both papers were exceptionally done and it went in their favor to add any details of controversy and irony to garnish the story with a little bit more tragedy.
LINER TITANIC RAMS ICEBERG :Largest Vessel Afloat Sinking Off Newfoundland. VIRGINIAS SPEEDS TO AID Women Being Taken Off in the Lifeboats. MANY NOTABLES ABOARD Maj. Butt, President Taft's Military Aid; C.M. Hays, J. Bruce Ismay, W.T. Stead, Isidor Straus, and Others Among Passengers -- Steamer Olympic Asked to Find Sister Ship -- Other Liners Going to Aid of Disabled Ves- sel Off the Banks of Newfoundland. Start of First Trip Marred by an Ac- cident at Southampton.. (1912, April 15). The Washington Post (1877-1954),p. 1. Retrieved April 9, 2009, from ProQuest Historical Newspapers The Washington Post (1877 - 1992) database. (Document ID: 141451462).
San Francisco Chronicle (1869-Current File); Apr 16, 1912; ProQuest Historical Newspapers The San Francisco Chronicle (1865-1922)
pg. 1
Abortion Ruling
I looked at two articles from Jan. 22, 1973, the day Supreme Court ruled in favor of legalizing abortion. The L.A. Times article, “Mother Knows Best,” cited an attorney, Norma Zarky who was active in changing abortion laws, different states’ abortion laws, and the Supreme Court. Weaver’s article was short compared to the NY Times article. It stated the facts and one side of the controversy. The only perspective that the article gave came from one Zarky who explained that the problem with the Abortion ruling was that states would have no control if an abortion occurred within the first three months of pregnancy, which could mean that the state would have no power to require that first trimester abortions be done in hospitals. The article said that the court’s decision could force every state to liberalize its laws on abortions.
The NY Times article, “High Court Rules Abortions Legal the First 3 Months,” by Warren Weaver, Jr., was more well rounded and in-depth. The article explained the facts and gave quotes from judges, gave the opinion of president Nixon, the opinion of Women’s rights groups, and the contrasting viewpoints of the judges.
The NYT article told which judges voted which way and seemed more balanced than the L.A. Times article.
Both articles noted that abortion was a controversial issue.
Abortion is still controversial today and is still discussed in the media.
The book, “Discovering the News,” examines the news story as being a “social form, tightly restrained by the routines of news gathering. Officials are the sources relied upon in newsgathering, therefore, “newsgathering itself constructs an image of reality which reinforces official viewpoints.”
The article from NYT gives the perspectives of officials to validate both sides of the issue. The NYT article uses objectivity as a “strategic ritual which journalist use to defend themselves against mistakes and criticism.” The NYT article uses contrasting opinions of official sources to evaluate the issue. The L.A. Times article does not do this and therefore appears less objective.
The writing style of both articles was pretty un-sensational and fact-heavy.
Much of what I see in journalism today seems to be more literary and interpretive probably because writers are trying to be more entertaining. I still see the use of objectivity as a strategic ritual to some degree today.
Sources:
http://www.nytimes.com/learning/general/onthisday/big/0122.html#article
ABORTION RULING: MOTHER KNOWS BEST
Los Angeles Times (1886-Current File); Jan 22, 1973; ProQuest Historical Newspapers Los Angeles Times (1881 - 1986)
pg. 1
Discovering the News, Michael Schudson
The NY Times article, “High Court Rules Abortions Legal the First 3 Months,” by Warren Weaver, Jr., was more well rounded and in-depth. The article explained the facts and gave quotes from judges, gave the opinion of president Nixon, the opinion of Women’s rights groups, and the contrasting viewpoints of the judges.
The NYT article told which judges voted which way and seemed more balanced than the L.A. Times article.
Both articles noted that abortion was a controversial issue.
Abortion is still controversial today and is still discussed in the media.
The book, “Discovering the News,” examines the news story as being a “social form, tightly restrained by the routines of news gathering. Officials are the sources relied upon in newsgathering, therefore, “newsgathering itself constructs an image of reality which reinforces official viewpoints.”
The article from NYT gives the perspectives of officials to validate both sides of the issue. The NYT article uses objectivity as a “strategic ritual which journalist use to defend themselves against mistakes and criticism.” The NYT article uses contrasting opinions of official sources to evaluate the issue. The L.A. Times article does not do this and therefore appears less objective.
The writing style of both articles was pretty un-sensational and fact-heavy.
Much of what I see in journalism today seems to be more literary and interpretive probably because writers are trying to be more entertaining. I still see the use of objectivity as a strategic ritual to some degree today.
Sources:
http://www.nytimes.com/learning/general/onthisday/big/0122.html#article
ABORTION RULING: MOTHER KNOWS BEST
Los Angeles Times (1886-Current File); Jan 22, 1973; ProQuest Historical Newspapers Los Angeles Times (1881 - 1986)
pg. 1
Discovering the News, Michael Schudson
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)