Roşia Montană Project is a gold and silver mining program initiated
by Roşia Montană Gold Corporation (RMGC) in the Rosia Montana village in
Romania. The highest shareholder of RMGC is Gabriel Resources, a Canadian resource
company focused on permitting and developing the Rosia Montana project.
If approved, the project will use a cyanide based technology.
The environment will undertake massive changes.
The open-pit mining technology would lead to a cyanide lake in the
middle of the nature, as 12.000 tons of cyanide will be used on an annual basis.
Three villages and four mountain tops are doomed to disappear in favor of the
pit, Europe’s would-be largest.
The protests against Roşia Montană Gold Corporation have
officially started on the 1st of September after the Government considered
approving the project. Every night, thousands of people have taken up marches,
both locally and on an international level. However, the first protests were
started by the locals of Roşia Montană who refused to relocate and have been
fighting RMGC in court for years.
Gabriel Resources, the aforementioned shareholder who owns
80% of RGMC, has been paying large sums of money on advertising throughout the
years. Forbes Romania stated that RMGC paid €5.5 million in ads in Romanian
newspapers and €550.000 in TV ads. The national television, TVR, has also been
influenced. Because of its silence, thousands marched against TVR on September
the 7th, 2013. Unsurprisingly, the uprising, although at the gates of the
building, did not reach the news. On the other side, media outlets accused the
environmentalists who took the streets of benefiting of financial gains. However,
in the last month, due to the size of the protesting crowds, some TV stations
and newspapers included the riots into their agenda. It should be kept in mind
that not all media outlets gave in and the news did not get its deserved
exclusivity but was kept in the background.
The two articles I chose with regards to this subject come
from the independent platform, Indymedia UK (http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2013/09/512906.html)
and the BBC website (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-24021816).
It is fairly difficult to find articles that are in favor of
the Rosia Montana project due to its environmental effects but the differences
between the aforementioned articles are clearly visible while keeping in mind
that we have two different sources, an independent platform and a state-funded
one. It is obvious how BBC focuses on the would-be positive elements while
leaving the negative effects in the background, as an expected outcome. While
the environmental issues were only mentioned twice, the supposed positive
effects such as the expanding and modernizing the Transylvania mine, 300 tonnes
of gold and 1500 tonnes of silver, the creation of 3000 jobs and the influence of
Gabriel Resource which will sue if the law won’t pass, were clearly the focus
of the article.
As opposed to the BBC, Indymedia focuses on facts such as the
environmental outcomes of the mining project, the media blackout and the
comparison between Rosia Montana gold mine and other European mines while putting
the financial advantages in a negative light
In my opinion, while reading the
articles, we find ourselves in the situation where we have to choose, based on
moral grounds, if the positive effects, such as the economic rise, weigh more
or less compared to the negative effects. In other words, are 3000 jobs and 6%
revenue (as both articles portray) good enough to destroy a significant part of
the Romanian natural habitat?
In
conclusion, I believe that between these two articles, the Indymedia one is
better structured and contains more significant facts about the Rosia Montana
mining project while it can be seen as an online protest against RMGC
corporation while BBC neglects the negative aspects but focuses on the economic
improvements that Rosia Montana could bring.
Alex Grama
For project week, I chose the topic of Catalan independence in Spain. On one side, there is a push for independence from Spain and on the other, determination to keep Catalonia a part of the state.
ReplyDeleteI chose 2 articles, one article is about a protest against independence that took place in Barcelona and the other is about the Catalan parliament and how it has voted ‘yes’ to lobby for independence.
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/europe/catalan-parliament-approves-call-for-vote-on-independence-from-spain-1.1542973
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/large-rally-in-barcelona-opposes-moves-for-catalan-independence-from-the-rest-of-spain/2013/10/12/1366834a-3332-11e3-ad00-ec4c6b31cbed_story.html
Key differences:
The first, obvious difference between the articles is that one talks about pro-independence and the other anti-independence. In the first article, we are led to believe that this is a huge pro-Spain rally and that a large proportion of the population are against independence, there is no mention of the Pro-independence protests that were evident in much larger scale just weeks before. The article refers to large numbers of protesters to give the impression that this was on a huge scale. The second article discussed the pro-independence movement, and how the Catalan government have agreed to push for a referendum, it gives the reasons that the Catalan people believe they should be independent but does not provide a counter argument.
How active were those media in shaping and constructing the message?
Both articles are biased towards what they are reporting, one article is in support of the Independence movement the other is against it. Although both articles make it clear that they are quoting people, they only use examples from one side of the argument, you feel that they are somewhat representing their own views with quotes from other people, especially when it comes to using numbers and figures to back their story up.
Personal response
Having had previous knowledge on the topic, I feel both articles could have covered much more than they did, especially in terms of forming a counter argument. The first article talks about a mass demonstration yet fails to mention the Pro-independence movement which happened a few weeks before where hundreds and thousands of people linked arm to cover Catalonia. The second article however, doesn’t mention the fact that there are people who want to remain part of Spain. I feel that if I hadn’t had previous knowledge on the subject then the articles would have affected my opinion.
Samuel draper
Yu Zhengsheng, one of the top Chinese leaders, visited the Tibetan part of China during this summer. I chose 2 news reports on this topic to make comparison, one is from Xinhua News in China, and another is from the Guardian in the UK. Both reported the same event but they were from different angles and focused on different aspects.
ReplyDeleteCompare these two pieces of news, the Chinese one more focuses on economy development and Dalai Lama’s political opinions are against people’s will. It says the “为了促进西藏的经济发展和改善540万藏民的生活质量，政府已进行了巨大投资” (to develop the economy in Tibet and to improve the life quality of 5,400,000 people in Tibet, the government has put loads of money into this area), this gives the government a very positive image, implying the government is helping people. Dalai Lama, on the on the hand,”长期从事分裂祖国的活动” (constantly doing things to separate the country). This comparison makes it clear that the Chinese government and the communist party are playing the good roles. The British one is longer than the Chinese report. It firstly reports the fact of the political visit, and then moves to the violent conflicts between the police and religious people, which is more important. There is one sentence saying “While Chinese security forces often use heavy-handed tactics to stop protests in Tibetan regions, they rarely use guns”. This shows the police in China is extremely tough to the religious people who support Dalai Lama, implying democracy and freedom are not valued. It also says the officials in China were not aware of this incident, implying the government is supporting the shooting, or they avoid contact with western media. Apart from the view from Yu Zhengsheng, who represents the government and the party, the Guardian also adds the view from Dalai Lama, which is “merely seeking greater autonomy for his Himalayan homeland”. It sounds like he is innocent and noble. One very interesting point here is the Xinhua News mentioned the Guardian’s report on this event but it only says “China vows to ‘deepen the struggle' against Dalai Lama”. The words here make it look like UK is supporting the behaviours of China against Dalai Lama and his supporters. It is not difficult to see Xinhua News is purely from the point of view of Chinese government and Communist Party. It serves as propaganda. The Guardian is not as one-sided as Xinhua. It reports the political visits, using the information from Xinhua, and also presenting opinions from western views. It subtly criticized China’s policy on Tibet and Dalai Lama. In the Xinhua News, you can barely find journalist’s own words. The piece is from the party. In the Guardian one, journalist’s opinions are more obvious and you can tell he does not completely agree with China’s attitudes.
About the police shooting religious people incident, it’s not covered in any of Chinese media. It is hard for me to judge if it is true, or how much it is true. Xinhua news is far too one-sided so if it adds other people’s opinions, it would make the news more convincing.
Lin Jin
Eun Ju KIM
ReplyDeleteSouth Korea published “Pro-Japanese” history textbook
The disagreement over high school history textbook published by Kyohak Publishing Co. is intense between conservative and republicans in S. Korea.
Kyohak Publishing Co. is formed by group of conservative scholars known as “New Right” and for the first time their book passed by the country’s education ministry.
This high school history textbook describes, Japan helped to develop S. Korea from education, industrialization and economy in Japan’s colonial period during World War II. However, publics in Korea strongly marked the time as gloomy and more of shameful moments in Korean history since men had to work for Japan unwillingly, women forcefully served Japanese soldiers as the “comfort women”. One of the most debatable issues is that since the National Institute of Korean History has authorized its exposure, soon after young students would learn the ‘false truth’ of their own history. It is their clear attempt to openly praise Japan and acknowledge them for Korea’s modernization moreover, to spread their tilted political ideology.
“Right-learning, biased textbook will establish a distorted view of history among students”. “The textbook did not describe the catastrophic damage done to the civilian protesters. It can only be seen as an attempt to downsize or distort the democratic movement,” Gwangju Metropolitan Office of Education in its statement.
The paragraph above is from The Korea Times by Nam Hyun-Woo. Woo emphasizes on terrifying consequences of its impact to students and society through pointing out relevant examples of event.
In contrast, Japanese newspaper has written the same issue in calm and moderate style. From The Japan Times, “The textbook has already stirred heated debate. Attention is focused on how many high schools across the country will decide to use it from next March”. (JiJi, 2013) His writing illustrate that he does not attempt to take any side of arguments but merely report the event.
The intensity of this issue on two countries was easy to distinguish by the length and depth of articles. It was surprising to see the opposite reaction to the same issue. Japanese reporter wrote the article in view of third point whereas Korean reporter passionately explains its events in details and try to get readers in deeper thinking discrete from a simple daily issue.
http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2013/09/116_142384.html
http://japandailypress.com/new-south-korean-history-textbook-praises-japanese-colonial-rule-for-first-time-0535378/
Nobel Prize Winner-Obama?
ReplyDelete"Obama’s drone killed thousands of people; the Nobel Peace Prize Committee is able to take it back?" At this year's Peace Prize, less than 24 hours before the announcement, the British "Daily Telegraph" questioned the Norwegian Nobel Committee.
Another article published on 11th by Pakistani "Tribune "saying that" Sensational event? Nobel Peace Prize: prestige, anger and controversy." It targets to argue that the process of selection of the award winners indicates Orientalism. They say that this is a Western institution; the selection is its favourite against their dislike organizations and individuals.
"Voice of Russia” on the 10th, "said the Nobel Peace Prize selection rules have a strong ideology appearance." It implies that the Nobel jury composed by the left-leaning liberals, emphasising on the protection of minorities as they promote to solve ecological problems, disarmament agenda. Because of this, left-leaning liberals have a good impression of Obama even though he does not have any real contribution to peace prize.
Interestingly, "Huffington Post" from the United States said the Nobel Peace Prize today, "dragging a broken moral compass," they insists that peace prize is being a silent support of the ‘war for stopping the terror’.
From the establishment of the Nobel Peace Prize, the most likely to get the Peace Prize should have a politician or social activist identity based on their contribution and performance in major international events. Apparently, Nobel Peace Prize is the most controversial one due to its strong political overtones, but the choice is often limited by the Peace Prize awards committee's position. Thus, undoubtedly the prize results will trigger media responses with various emphasise and intentions because of their variability and complexity. Generally speaking, I am outside of the participants and commenters, which means I should perceive these controversies in a more objective way like why different countries gave different versions regarding the prize winner and what is the correct attitude towards the controversial issues and news. Obviously, the main task is to become critical facing controversial issues, maybe partly right or wrong, maybe all right or wrong. With regard to the Nobel Peace Prize, different news confused me but also helped me out.
ZHANG Yujie
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteFor project week, I found two news articles about “Obamacare impacts on young people”.
ReplyDeleteHere are the links of these two news articles:
http://dailycaller.com/2013/10/03/study-obamacare-spikes-young-peoples-health-insurance-costs/
http://www.policymic.com/articles/67403/health-experts-takedown-right-wing-study-claiming-obamacare-hurts-young-people
Between these two news items, it is obvious that they hold different perspectives on the influence of Obamacre. In the first article, the author believes that Obamacre hurts young people and they will pay more for health insurance under Obamacare. In his article, he presents his impression based on a report from the conservative American Action Forum (AAF). He takes advantage of precise numbers in order to give audiences straightforward information to understand his view, as well as quotes and paraphrases the content of the report to state rapid raise in health insurance costs, which he emphasizes in the second paragraph: “rise dramatically”. For instance, he indicates that “The average change between 2013 and 2014 low-cost premiums is 260 percent”.
However, in the second article, the author holds opposite view. He believes that Obamacare does not hurt young people and the purpose of AAF’s report is to scare. In his article, he cites plenty of health experts’ views to highlight AAF’s report is criticized by health policy experts, which he emphasizes in the first paragraph. Furthermore, the author also use a photo before the article: a group of young people who are smiling stand behind Obama to listen to his explanation of Obamacare. Namely, young people consider that Obamacare is good. It will result in the intuitive impression of the audience.
The way that those media were active in shaping and constructing the message is they attributed to a source and combined with their own words to support their view. They directly quoted people or paraphrased the source in their own words. In this way, the message could be more realistic as well as could make more convincing to the audience.
To sum up, although I feel that the first article could have a counter argument in its content to enhance the power of its view: Obamacre hurts young people and they will pay more for health insurance under Obamacare, this news article did affect my opinion on Obamacare. I started to doubt: Is Obamacare really a good thing? Both news articles make this issue become more confused in my mind, because I feel that these two angles on the controversy of Obamacare are all reasonable.
Ying Kong
The issue that I have chosen for project week is the recent court ruling in Malaysia which prohibited a Catholic weekly publication, The Herald, from using the word ‘Allah’ in any of its publications as the Malay translation of the word ‘god’. The two articles regarding the matter that will be examined are from Malaysian local English newspaper, The Star, and the BBC’s online report of the case.
ReplyDeleteAs a general introduction of the issue in question, in 2009, the Home Ministry of Malaysia which holds legislative authority over the printing press in the nation, had ruled that the Catholic weekly, which had been in publication for close to 20 years, was not permitted to use the word ‘Allah’ in any of the articles in the publication. The Catholic community had won an initial judgment in which the High Court had overturned the ban, prompting the government into appealing the decision.
The most notable difference between the two versions (The Star’s and BBC’s) coverage of the court ruling is the contrasting focus of the two articles. In the article of The Star, which, incidentally, is owned by the government, the headline focuses first on the fact that the government had successfully won the appeal and follows up with providing a reason for the ruling: public safety. The report which follows in the Star is very much a narrative of court proceedings, emphasizing mostly on the ruling and the reason behind it. However, in instance where the Star attempted to familiarize its readers with facts and figures behind the case, it does so in a relatively vague manner. For example, the article reveals that the Catholic newspaper, The Herald, had been using ‘Allah’ as a Malay translation for God but fails to mention how long the weekly had been doing so. Also, while stating that ‘sufficient material’ had been considered leading up to the ruling, the article does not illustrate or evaluate about what material had been used.
The BBC’s headline and article is much less sugar-coated and somewhat reflective of the unspoken implication of the court ruling, which is the exclusiveness of the word ‘Allah’ for Muslims. It is also more comprehensive, providing viewpoints and comments of certain parties and including helpful facts, such as the origin of the word ‘Allah’. The BBC’s report is also concluded with a more analytical manner, in which possible theories of political struggle and consolidation are suggested, theories which hold the ability to influence the reader, somewhat, into a more sympathetic association with the Catholic community who had come up short in the ruling.
Links to the two articles:
http://www.thestar.com.my/News/Nation/2013/10/14/Allah-The-Herald-Catholic-Muslim.aspx
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-24516181
Yeoh Zhijian, Darren
The two articles I have chosen is about the protest of residents in Yuyao, China against official for the late action and few things have been done since the flood happened in northeast China.
ReplyDeleteLinks for two articles:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-24548515
http://news.ifeng.com/mainland/special/taifengfeite/content-3/detail_2013_10/16/30378758_0.shtml
For the Yuyao Daily version since there is no official English translation, it was translated by BBC in their report:
But on Tuesday the Yuyao Daily, run by the local Communist Party, criticised the violence.
"A small number of the protesters have resorted to violent acts while the relief operation has reached a critical stage," it said.
Residents should "express their rational demands at an appropriate time, and in a reasonable manner".
"Everyone has a duty to maintain stability, let us do more to help disaster recovery and social stability and resolutely not participate in matters that will hurt disaster rebuilding and recovery efforts and social stability," the newspaper said.
It should be noticed that BBC reported there are “thousands of people protested in front of the government office there, throwing stones and overturning vehicles.” While in the Yuyao Daily’s report there is only “a small number of protesters have resorted to violent acts.”
According to Yuyao Daily, the official have done lots of efforts to rebuild the city, and the protest was understandable because the lost due to the flood made residents upset and aggressive. But BBC have reported the residents is angry with the government over “its slow response to flood relief” and “A number people have been arrested.”
What is also noticeable is that Yuyao Daily emphasized “maintain the stable of society”, it criticized the protest and ask the residents for rebuilding the city. But the BBC reported more on the angry residents and their confliction with armed police. BBC also pointed out: “Protests against officials are common, but rarely reported by state media “ and “State-run media in China were slow to report local anger in Yuyao”, which is perfectly evidenced by Yuyao Daily’s article itself.
Qiang ZHAO
For this task, I have chosen the topic of a short speech of Cardinal Dolan on the issue of gay marriage. This speech was made shortly after “the victory of same-sex marriage” in USA this year.
ReplyDeleteThe following links are three different articles reporting by different news media about it.
1. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/on-faith/wp/2013/06/26/religious-leaders-see-tragedy-and-justice-in-supreme-court-gay-marriage-decisions/
2. http://www.christianpost.com/news/cardinal-dolan-decries-supreme-court-decisions-as-tragic-for-marriage-nation-98942/
3. http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/cardinal-dolan-on-supreme-court-ruling-a-tragic-day-for-marriage-and-our-nation/politics/2013/06/26/69729#.Ul1ymKCxPlJ
Difference:
These three articles are talking about almost the same thing. However, the first piece of text is considered more neutral. It slightly describes the situation at that moment and then puts the statement of Cardinal Dolan after. Besides that, it also shows the words of other leaders. There is not much comment, only the quote. And the second piece of text tends to be more support of what Cardinal Dolan said. It explains more about his stance and belief. At the end it also talks about the percentage of Catholics who thought that the gay marriage would violate their religious belief. Finally, the third piece of text shows a little bit of criticism towards Cardinal Dolan. The last paragraph reports some of his behaviors that might be judged by many viewers.
How active:
The first article is more neutral due to the fact that those quotes from other people express different points of view. But the other two are more likely to only show the part that the writers were trying to focus on. Although they are reporting the same event, what they concentrate on is slightly different. For that reason, the readers who read different articles are probably going to have very distinct thoughts and opinions toward Cardinal Dolan. Moreover, both of the articles provide the evidence at the end trying to point out the main idea of the texts, which can make the message more effective and believable.
Personal response:
The truth is, three of the articles help me to know more information about this event and then think critically. Reading all of them can make me start to judge from different aspects without only passively receiving what Cardinal Dolan said. In general, I do not think that either of them has too much media bias. It seems that each of them just tries to tell the story from their sights.
TZU-HAN, YUAN
The controversy I investigated was the misuse of MP’s expenses in Australia recently. I chose an article from The Australian, which condemned in particular Peter Slipper, the former Speaker, and an article from the ABC which claimed Slipper was being targeted for political reasons while other MP’s were allowed to quietly repay funds.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/parliamentary-expenses-scandal-puts-all-mps-on-notice/story-e6frg6n6-1226738552048
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-10-12/peter-slipper-claims-double-standard-in-entitlements-scandal/5018732?WT.mc_id=newsmail
Both stories focussed on Slipper being the only MP to face criminal charges, though with a completely different emphasis on the implications of this fact.
The article in The Australian is structured to lead up to the fact; first revealing that all MPs are under investigation, before revealing that “the gold standard for Entitlement Abuser falls to Mr Slipper”. The article also states that Mr Slipper was “alleged to have breached Commonwealth laws by dishonestly filling out taxi dockets - not once, not twice, but around a dozen times”.
Meanwhile the article in the ABC got straight to the point they were trying to make in their byline, “Slipper says revelations about MPs' expenses prove the charges against him are politically motivated.”
The article in The Australian mainly used the journalist’s words to shape the angle of the article, while the ABC used quotes from Mr Slipper to emphasise their claims. However, the ABC only used quotes from Mr Slipper, so the article can hardly be called balanced.
Personally I think the article in the Australian could almost be called defamatory, and yet all facts it presents are currently considered to be potentially true. The ABC article does give a convincing reason for the view seen in the Australian, it is only a view from one person (and the accused at that), so it is hardly overwhelming evidence. I think the ABC could have backed up their article with quotes and opinions from other actors in the controversy, and the Australian could have presented the facts with a less obvious angle to be seen as more objective, and hence reliable.
Jess Fricke
For my project, I choose to focus on a piece of news about that the leader of Japan Abe sent offering to the Yasukuni Shrine. And three articles I chose are as followed. The reason why I choose these three articles is that they could represent two mentioned countries’ media and a quite neutral media.
ReplyDeleteCCTV English: http://english.cntv.cn/program/newsupdate/20131017/104313.shtml
The Japan Times: http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2013/10/12/national/abe-to-stay-away-from-yasukuni-shrine-festival-to-appease-china-south-korea/
The New York Times: http://cn.nytimes.com/asia-pacific/20131018/c18japan/
Key differences:
The differences among these three articles are obviously. In terms on the first news, CCTV news more focuses on the times. They emphasize the third time on the title. And it solely shows little comments about this activity. In my opinion, this may because there are too many times of Japanese politicians visiting the shrine, the comments is not the key point of them to show to the Chinese publics.
As for the Japan Times, this piece of news is quite at the angle of Japanese public. It uses the words like ‘stay away’ and ‘appease’ in the title to express that this activity is a kind of political diplomacy. It more focuses on the international background and the probable effects of this activity. And it also mentions the statement about the territorial disputes and differing historical interpretations of Abe, which seemingly want to deny his appease.
The third news is quite overall. It looks like a conclusion of the news and shows the responses of opposing sides. Compared with the first two articles, it points out that this activity is not only a way to ease the conflict, but also a way to please his supporters. And it also shows some details like some of his right-wing supporters urge him to visit the shrine.
What needs to point out is that both Japan Times and New York Times mention that Abe may receive the pressure from the US government.
In my opinion, these three articles seemingly all include a personal attitude or status attitude towards the news. Compared with other two articles, the first news seemingly has a blame attitude as many facts of visiting shrine are showed in the article. The second article uses the word like ‘the source said’, however, it does not give a brief reference of this source to prove the reliability. This kind of expression may be able to be regarded as editors’ viewpoint. It is noted that this article does not show a clear attitude towards this activity. With an ambiguous attitude, however, it cares more about the purpose of this activity. For example, it emphasizes that a source at the Prime Minister’s Office claimed Tokyo’s relations with Beijing and Seoul are not as poor as they are portrayed in the media. There are not any obvious sentences of the third article. It shows the two-side responses and quite likes a statement. However, the article emphasizes the other meanings of shrine except its religious meaning for Japan. It may show the state in some way.
Due to the nationality, there will not be a big change of my attitude towards Abe’s activity. However, I will be more curious about the role the US taken in this activity.
YUZHE LI