I have chosen three articles from BBC and Fox News. The subject is about whether the HS2 will bring benefits to UK or not. In the first article, it can be easily seen that Transport Secretary Patrick McLoughlin has said he is in no doubt the HS2 highspeed rail project will bring benefits to the whole UK. He also emphasized that he is sure that some of the "losing" areas would benefit from other planned rail improvements. He used the words like’ it is vitally and Its no doubt of me’. He emphasis the benefits and marketing in his speech. However, in other two articles, James Bream, policy director of Aberdeen's Chamber of Commerce, said it was "really disappointing" that such a huge number was left out of the original report. He added the negative impact for the whole northeast of Scotland could be "significant to say the least." Meanwhile, Dundee and Angus could lose as much as 2% of its annual GDP, KPMG found. It is also against by the environmental groups because they think the project will influence the environment and animals as well. Those two articles use debating method to comment the same source despite that they use the same source just because of different perspectives and positions.
It helps me think that people who are in different positions also have different perspectives on the same source. It is interesting that BBC has reported two different perspective reports in the same period. Maybe it would like to give us more perspectives or sides to analyze the event.
Source:
Good identification of the discourses of certainty and doubt, and interesting observation about the two articles published at practically the same time. The use of different sources (a government minister, business sources and civil society [environmental] source) fulfills the professional norm of balance within the article, but it is interesting that each side of the debate is given the lead angle in one of the stories, with the other side given the role of responding and rebutting. These are fascinating examples that illustrate the significance of particular sources as primary definers in a story.
ReplyDelete