Air pollution in Beijing, China

By studying the political representation over the recent issue, air pollution in Beijing, I chose three articles from China Daily, The New York Times, and BBC, which hold a variety of stances and opinions.

China Daily http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2013-09/30/content_17003905.htm

the New York Times http://sinosphere.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/10/17/amid-heavy-pollution-beijing-    issues-emergency-rules-to-protect-citizens/?_r=0

BBC http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-24566288

Basically these three articles are allocated into two groups: the one of China Daily standing for the typical representation from national state-run media on the one hand, BBC and the New York Times for foreign media on the other. Although the opposition between two sides is not considerably intensive, their slants and the way of representation differentiate to a great extent and the competition is out of question.

Here I have sorted out a couple of major differences between two groups:

1 The most direct viewing point is the use of photos. Instead of posting some striking pictures of the dark and smoggy sky like what BBC does, the one China Daily selects is relatively mild and acceptable. The girl is calm and her protection is uncomplicated; most importantly the sky in the back is bright and deliberately blurred to leave readers the impression that maybe the air is not heavily polluted. Or on the contrary, BBC selects their picture elaborately to exaggerate the fact.

                                      

                            

2 The factors of air pollution are analyzed quite differently. China Daily only reports “Meteorologists blame pollution on stagnant air”; while BBC broadcasts “Beijing has more than four million private cars, considered to be a major source of the city’s air pollution”. It is transparent that national authoritarian media deliberately leave out artificial factors such as vehicles and precaution, which could lead to criticism towards the government. Similarly, possible consequences are not covered at all in China Daily’s story. While the New York Times provide some information of the health danger according to Reuters and the possible rocketing pressure on public transportation.

3 the third point lies in the representation of government’s plan. China Daily merely covers the newly released rate system to monitor pollution; however the genuinely controversial and crucial part is the auto restriction, which is reported by both BBC and the New York Times. Moreover they also provide several pieces of criticism of the new policy from Chinese Twitter. A rather blunt one is “…whether the car rule will solve the air pollution problem. I don’t believe this is a good policy. It’s a simple and crude measure that leaves the skies still smoggy”, and complaints exemplified as “restriction for targeting ordinary people as cars used by government officials and civil servants are exempted…ordinary people are the first to be forced to pay the price for it”.

It is not objective to draw the conclusion that the articles from BBC and the New York Times are impartial and unbiased, but the one from China Daily, without causal factors, consequences and criticism, is considerably superficial and not critical at all. After comparing the two groups of reports, I’m better informed and more convinced by the foreign articles. 

Xu WANG

The Veggie Day and the Greens before elections in 2013

I have chosen two articles from major German newspapers that portray a controversy about the decision of the Greens to support the Veggie Day Initiative. The Veggie Day initiative supports Canteens and Cafeterias to have one meat-free day a week. I have chosen two obviously biased articles to consider what the differences in reporting are.

The first article was published in the Bild-Zeitung and is the article which first covered this aspect of the Green agenda. The title is rather biased as it says ”The Greens want to forbid us to eat meat!“. This can be considered as an outcry of indignation that gives the article a strong emotional touch.  Thus, from the beginning of the article the author already gives up any attempt for impartiality. Within the article he seeks to reestablish this by using quotes voicing different opinions but ending with a negative quote he seeks to persuade the reader towards his opinion.

Another article published in the Spiegel takes a step back from the first emotional reaction reflected in the article of the Bild-Zeitung and examines the factual background of the controversy considering whether the fear of a „Green re-education“ is reasonable. It is an answer to the media hype that evolved around the Veggie Day. The author describes how the initial article and other articles in the Bild-Zeitung which used the voices of opponent parties to condemn the Greens as „Eco-Dictators“. Half of the article examines the previous media coverage. Therefore, it becomes apparent that not the news itself is in the centre of attention anymore but that in order to inform the public news coverage itself has to be taken into account. In the other half of the article the history of a meat-free day a week is examined and the independent realization of the Veggie Day in different towns is described. The author further strengthens his argument with ironic remarks concerning prior chancellors and their experiences trying to control public behaviour. The article has a formal conclusion saying that there is no need to fear the „Green re-education“.

In both articles the headline makes a first statement concerning the opinion that is portrayed throughout the article. Interestingly, the Bild-Zeitung article does not pursue a logic argument against the Veggie Day. It rather gives reasons for the Veggie Day, then ending with the example of a canteen in which customers successfully protested against the Veggie Day that was to be implemented in their canteen. Thus, the focus is clearly on emotions while the article from the Spiegel is rather fact based and addresses the humorous side of the reader. 

In my opinion, the whole story about the Veggie-Day-Initiative was constructed to harm the Greens from the beginning. It is one of those topics that do not actually help the German citizen to make a decision about whom to vote, but it is an emotional subject for Germans and thus was used to discredit the Greens. For me personally a Veggie Day would be fine.

by Isabel Mayer

Sources:
http://www.bild.de/politik/inland/vegetarisch/gruene-wollen-einmal-die-woche-in-kantinen-fleisch-verbieten-31661266.bild.html
http://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/veggie-day-gruene-regen-fleischverzicht-an-a-915657.html

Project Week: the End of the Shutdown

I’ve chosen two articles on the end of the shutdown of the American government: the first from MSNBC, and the second from Fox News (for those of you who are unfamiliar with American news giants, MSNBC is largely considered to slant news to depict Democrats favourably, whereas Fox does the same for Republicans).

Both articles generally relay the same information and use the same sources. Both laud the end of the shutdown, and disapprove of the congressional gridlock, which allowed this long-standing debate to ever reach the point of a shutdown. The key difference between the two is the general tone in which the articles are written: the MSNBC article is much more optimistic and upbeat about the future, quoting Obama saying: “We’ll bounce back from this. We always do,” nodding to America’s stereotypical image as the strongest, most resilient country. They continue painting the agreement in a positive light, quoting a senator saying: “We believe there is common ground (between the Democrats and the Republicans),” which is an interesting angle to take, considering that this agreement only funds the government until January of next year, with the debating on the most polarizing issue, healthcare, arguably the cause of the gridlock, postponed until then. Finally, MSNBC underlines how the shutdown has sent the public’s opinion of the Republican Party “plummeting,” according to recent polls.

Fox News’ article is much more grim, opening by qualifying the agreement as Obama’s “virtually condition-free increase in the debt ceiling,” which alludes to the popular American right-winger opinion that Democrats are careless spenders. They go on to call Obama’s healthcare law “unpopular,” and to further highlight that this agreement is not a proper solution because it only delays the resolution to the gridlock by a few more months. Finally, they say: “Obama got what he wanted,” which gives the reader the impression that the bad guy has won, whilst the Republicans "(…) fought the good fight.” Fox makes it abundantly clear that they are not supporters of the Democratic Party; in fact they view them quite unfavourably, a long-known fact to Americans (and to anyone who reads this article). Unsurprisingly, Fox makes no mention of the spiralling public opinion of the Republican Party.

These articles did not shape my opinion on the agreement to end the shutdown, however I wouldn’t doubt that they could sway the opinion of somebody who does not closely follow politics, or help solidify the position of someone who lets their political ideology cloud their view of political happenings. They are great examples of how media outlets can spin stories by putting emphasis on different elements of the story or using quotes in different contexts, as they both used the same sources and conveyed the same general information, all the while portraying the agreement in completely different lights, in accordance with their political views. This is why as an American I have learned to get my news from more balanced or international outlets, such as NPR or the BBC.

Colin Woodford

MSNBC article: http://www.nbcnews.com/id/53304197/ns/local_news-portsmouth_va/t/shutdown-over-obama-surveys-damage/#.UmHLNRZU5O4

Fox News article: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/10/17/senate-begins-vote-on-budget-bill-boehner-pledges-house-wont-block-it/

Project Week - Edward Snowden

I chose to look at the events of the Edward Snowden leaks that occurred over the summer. More specifically, I found two articles both discussing the moment when the US charged Snowden with espionage and theft of government property. The two news outlets I used were the BBC and FOX News.

Structurally, both articles are quite similar. Starting with the “new” information (that Snowden was charged), there was a brief discussion on the reaction by other politicians/individuals, and then both conclude with a bit more background information on either the leaks, or the political structure of Beijing that is allowing for such a complex political situation to occur. Word-wise, there once again doesn’t seem much difference, as the “facts” are essentially the same.

Where there is a difference is the “reaction” section. Interestingly, both articles quoted the same senator, Bill Nelson, as he called Snowden’s act “treasonous”. The other quotes that followed, however indicates where the slant in this writing may be. The BBC article proceeded to quote a left-wing Hong Kong politician as well as Wikileaks’ Julian Assange, both of whom expressed how they thought Snowden should be protected from extradition and any charges. Fox News did not show these contrasting voices — the only other voiced “opinion” is that of a New York Republican echoing the notion that Snowden “betrayed his country”. Clearly here one can see that there isn’t a “balanced” voice, as FOX News readers may be led to assume that there isn’t an opposition to these charges (as opposed to the BBC article). While this is the sources who are saying these opinions, it is the journalist’s own omission of the counter arguments that reveals the bias.

As I mainly followed the Snowden controversy through the BBC, seeing a more “slanted” article from FOX didn’t really affect me. I’ve found that the BBC reporting usually does a decent job of showing varying sides in a neutral voice, and so my opinions were usually created through other means than just reading a single news article. I could see, however, how the FOX News article could be working to influence individuals to think a certain way. This is not much of a shock, given FOX’s reputation.

-- Kyle McCloy

Article Links

BBC - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-23012317

FOX News - http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/06/22/charges-reportedly-filed-against-nsa-secrets-leaker/