Is All News Coverage Created Equal?
Is all news coverage created equal? Do newspapers, magazines, and blogs cover the same events in basically the same way? The answer is no. Really? But why, how? A story first starts out as an event. Then, the event is reported. This is where coverage differences begin. It is not just the event that is being reported, but certain aspects of it. Parts of a story will be emphasized while other parts will be glossed over or not talked about at all. Next, journalists give their take on the event and try to persuade the public to accept their views. This is where coverage really differs. Finally, news sources begin to report on each other’s coverage. This is a basic picture of a news cycle. But a basic picture is not enough. I will analyze several blogs and a newspaper and compare their differences. The newspaper has a liberal perspective and the blogs have a conservative one. The newspaper is the New York Times and the blogs are Powerline and Hot Air. I have also included National Review Online’s editorial webpage even though it is not technically a blog or a newspaper. National Review is a conservative journal and I will be quoting from its online editorials which are not published in the magazine. As will become apparent, the liberal papers and the conservative blogs will contrast each other. A recent current event that all of these news sources covered is President Obama’s Asian tour. His trip took him to Japan, China, Singapore, and South Korea with the aim of setting a new diplomatic tone in the region. I will compare the coverage of this event, specifically Obama’s visit to Japan and China, and then explain what these differences mean and why they are important.
The first leg of the Asian tour took Obama to Japan. Immediately, there was controversial news: the President bowed to Emperor Akihito, not just a head nod, but a low, from the waist bow. Naturally, conservative-leaning blogs were the first to cover this story. Sites like Powerline wondered “how low will he go.”[i] Going back to the American Revolution and the precedent set by George Washington, the blog writers stressed the tradition that American leaders do not bow before monarchs. Hot Air provided a video montage of the emperor greeting various dignitaries who did not bow and compared it to Obama,[ii] countering the rumor that Obama was following diplomatic protocol. A Powerline article featured a picture of General McArthur standing next to Emperor Hirohito after World War Two. McArthur does not look deferential at all.[iii] The conservative-leaning blogs were quick to react and to have strong opinions on the matter. To them, it suggested that America was taking a subservient role to the Japanese. Left-leaning websites had a different take of the ‘bowing incident.’ This incident was not covered by the New York Times until several days later and then it was mentioned as a brief episode in a series of events. The Times referred to the event as a minor issue blown out of proportion by “right-wing bloggers back at home.”[iv] Obama’s bow was, to the Times, particularly trivial compared to his accomplishments, meaning his welcomed reception and apparent popularity in Japan. Was Obama’s visit to Japan a success? Well, it depends on who you ask.
After a short stop in Singapore, Obama visited China. Even before Obama set foot in Beijing, there were speculations about his possible accomplishments, dire predictions of failure, and historical comparisons with past presidents. Whether one looked at blogs or newspapers it was the same: how will Obama define the China/America relationship. The view the New York Times adopted of the ‘Chimerica’ relationship was that the US and China need each other to maintain the balance of power, trade, and money.[v] The view National Review advanced is that China need us more than we need it due to several serious, hidden problems the Chinese face like future massive population declines and a monetary system dependant on the dollar. When Obama did finally arrive, he began by holding joint-session meetings with Party Leader, Hu Jintao. He then gave several speeches, toured China’s famous sites, and held a question-answer meeting with Chinese students in Shanghai. The New York Times was a little disappointed with Obama’s trip. The Times would have liked Obama’s trip to be more open and transparent than the Party allowed and wished Obama had more time with the people.[vi] Nevertheless, Obama, according to the Times, paved the way for a less antagonistic relationship between China and America. On the other hand, Powerline and Hot Air reported that the Party government kept Obama on a tight leash. According to Hot Air, “China’s leader made sure that Obama didn’t get the chance (to be successful) by blacking out media coverage of the event.”[vii] They criticized him because he did not stand up to Hu Jintao on core issues like human rights and the monetary system. All news sources, liberal and conservative alike, were disappointed at the Shanghai student meeting since the Chinese government obviously controlled the meeting and the students were mostly members of “the Communist Youth League which is closely affiliated with President Hu Jintao.”[viii] Another point of agreement between the Times and the blogs was the money issue. As the Times wrote on the subject, “Mr. Obama did not appear to move the Chinese on currency issues.”[ix] Larry Kudlow, one of the writers for National Review, writes, “And what’s the current US solution to the dollar problem? Blame China and call for the revaluation of the yuan.”[x] Although all these news sources agree that Obama’s visit to China was not a thunderous success, the extent of that success, if any, is debatable.
Now that we’ve analyzed the coverage of these events, what does it tell us about the news sources? I’ve already divided these news sources into fairly liberal and fairly conservative camps. For instance, when Obama went to China, the liberal New York Times stated that he should be friendlier and less antagonistic to the Chinese while the conservative blogs stated that he should be firm and put America’s interests first. The Times focused on what China and Japan think of the United States while the blogs focused on American, Japanese, and Chinese policies. In other words, America’s image versus America’s policy. The liberal perspective can be summed up thus: if the United States has a positive image in the eyes of other countries then the policies will fall into place. On the other hand, the conservative perspective can be defined thus: we cannot make other nations like us so we must have strong policies in place based on our national self-interest. The coverage of Obama’s tour varied because of this fundamental difference in the purpose of diplomacy. How a news source chooses to cover a story is based on its beliefs.
Once Obama finished his trip, these news sources quickly summed up the trip and moved on to more immediate stories like the Health Care Bill in the Senate and Sarah Palin’s new book (!). While some issues like health care or the war in Afghanistan keep recurring over the long term, stories like diplomatic trips and book sales have a short life span. The story looms large for a week or two until it is completely replaced by the next big story.
We can conclude that all news coverage is not created equal. Different beliefs lead to different ways of covering events. For instance, conservative-leaning blogs emphasize the need to have strong policies abroad and liberal-leaning papers stress the need to harbor good feelings with other nations. When Obama went to Japan, the blogs were chagrined when he bowed to the emperor, but the New York Times thought the incident was trivial compared to his popularity with the Japanese people. The coverage was similar when he went to China; the blogs were embarrassed that Obama was not firm with China while the Times wanted Obama to reach out to the Chinese people more than he did. The events of Obama’s trip remain the same regardless of the coverage. He still said the same things and went to the same meetings. But the people who report and comment on these events are human. They have their own perspectives and values and they set their arguments and beliefs in their respective contexts. How can we find out what is happening if the news is so shaped by the people reporting it? What we can do as readers is to read all sides of the story, in this example, the liberal and conservative sides. That way, we can attain better information and become knowledgeable of both positions. Also, being more informed can help us make better decisions. We cannot take the biases out of the news but we can still know what’s happening in the world. Coverage may not be created equal, but maybe that is not such a bad thing after all.
Works Cited:
Cooper, Helene. “China Holds Firm on Major Issues in Obama’s Visit.” New York Times. New York Times, 18 Nov. 2009. Web. 18 Nov. 2009.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/18/world/asia/18prexy.html?scp=5&sq=obama%20in%20China&st=cse
Cooper, Helene. “Japan Cools as It Prepares for Obama Visit.” New York Times. New York Times, 12 Nov. 2009. Web. 18 Nov. 2009.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/12/world/asia/12prexy.html?scp=1&sq=Obama%20in%20Japan&st=cse
Cooper, Helene and Barboza, David. “Obama Wades Into Internet Censorship In China Address.” New York Times. New York Times, 17 Nov. 2009. Web 18 Nov. 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/17/world/asia/17shanghai.html?scp=1&sq=obama%20in%20China&st=cse
Cooper, Helene and Fackler, Martin. “Obama’s Pacific Trip Encounters Rough Waters.” New York Times. New York Times, 19 Nov. 2009. Web. 19 Nov. 2009.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/19/world/asia/19assess.html?scp=1&sq=obama's%20pacific%20trip%20encounters%20rough%20waters&st=cse
Johnson, Scott W. “Why Is This Man Bowing?” Powerline. Powerline, 14 Nov. 2009. Web. 18 Nov. 2009.
http://powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/11/024948.php
Kudlow, Larry. “President Zero Sum Goes to Asia.” National Review Online. National Review, 18 Nov. 2009. Web. 18 Nov. 2009.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZDgwMjBjODI5ZjZjYWNiZjc1NDBhMjFjOGUyYWFjMWE=
Morrissey, Ed. “China Hits the Mute Button on Obama.” Hot Air. Hot Air, 18 Nov. 2009. Web. 18 Nov. 2009.
http://hotair.com/archives/2009/11/18/china-hits-the-mute-button-on-obama/
“Obama, Stop Bowing to Foreign Leaders.” Uconn College Republicans. Uconn College Republicans, 15 Nov. 2009. Web 22 Nov. 2009.www.uconncollegerepublicans.com
Is all news coverage created equal? Do newspapers, magazines, and blogs cover the same events in basically the same way? The answer is no. Really? But why, how? A story first starts out as an event. Then, the event is reported. This is where coverage differences begin. It is not just the event that is being reported, but certain aspects of it. Parts of a story will be emphasized while other parts will be glossed over or not talked about at all. Next, journalists give their take on the event and try to persuade the public to accept their views. This is where coverage really differs. Finally, news sources begin to report on each other’s coverage. This is a basic picture of a news cycle. But a basic picture is not enough. I will analyze several blogs and a newspaper and compare their differences. The newspaper has a liberal perspective and the blogs have a conservative one. The newspaper is the New York Times and the blogs are Powerline and Hot Air. I have also included National Review Online’s editorial webpage even though it is not technically a blog or a newspaper. National Review is a conservative journal and I will be quoting from its online editorials which are not published in the magazine. As will become apparent, the liberal papers and the conservative blogs will contrast each other. A recent current event that all of these news sources covered is President Obama’s Asian tour. His trip took him to Japan, China, Singapore, and South Korea with the aim of setting a new diplomatic tone in the region. I will compare the coverage of this event, specifically Obama’s visit to Japan and China, and then explain what these differences mean and why they are important.
The first leg of the Asian tour took Obama to Japan. Immediately, there was controversial news: the President bowed to Emperor Akihito, not just a head nod, but a low, from the waist bow. Naturally, conservative-leaning blogs were the first to cover this story. Sites like Powerline wondered “how low will he go.”[i] Going back to the American Revolution and the precedent set by George Washington, the blog writers stressed the tradition that American leaders do not bow before monarchs. Hot Air provided a video montage of the emperor greeting various dignitaries who did not bow and compared it to Obama,[ii] countering the rumor that Obama was following diplomatic protocol. A Powerline article featured a picture of General McArthur standing next to Emperor Hirohito after World War Two. McArthur does not look deferential at all.[iii] The conservative-leaning blogs were quick to react and to have strong opinions on the matter. To them, it suggested that America was taking a subservient role to the Japanese. Left-leaning websites had a different take of the ‘bowing incident.’ This incident was not covered by the New York Times until several days later and then it was mentioned as a brief episode in a series of events. The Times referred to the event as a minor issue blown out of proportion by “right-wing bloggers back at home.”[iv] Obama’s bow was, to the Times, particularly trivial compared to his accomplishments, meaning his welcomed reception and apparent popularity in Japan. Was Obama’s visit to Japan a success? Well, it depends on who you ask.
After a short stop in Singapore, Obama visited China. Even before Obama set foot in Beijing, there were speculations about his possible accomplishments, dire predictions of failure, and historical comparisons with past presidents. Whether one looked at blogs or newspapers it was the same: how will Obama define the China/America relationship. The view the New York Times adopted of the ‘Chimerica’ relationship was that the US and China need each other to maintain the balance of power, trade, and money.[v] The view National Review advanced is that China need us more than we need it due to several serious, hidden problems the Chinese face like future massive population declines and a monetary system dependant on the dollar. When Obama did finally arrive, he began by holding joint-session meetings with Party Leader, Hu Jintao. He then gave several speeches, toured China’s famous sites, and held a question-answer meeting with Chinese students in Shanghai. The New York Times was a little disappointed with Obama’s trip. The Times would have liked Obama’s trip to be more open and transparent than the Party allowed and wished Obama had more time with the people.[vi] Nevertheless, Obama, according to the Times, paved the way for a less antagonistic relationship between China and America. On the other hand, Powerline and Hot Air reported that the Party government kept Obama on a tight leash. According to Hot Air, “China’s leader made sure that Obama didn’t get the chance (to be successful) by blacking out media coverage of the event.”[vii] They criticized him because he did not stand up to Hu Jintao on core issues like human rights and the monetary system. All news sources, liberal and conservative alike, were disappointed at the Shanghai student meeting since the Chinese government obviously controlled the meeting and the students were mostly members of “the Communist Youth League which is closely affiliated with President Hu Jintao.”[viii] Another point of agreement between the Times and the blogs was the money issue. As the Times wrote on the subject, “Mr. Obama did not appear to move the Chinese on currency issues.”[ix] Larry Kudlow, one of the writers for National Review, writes, “And what’s the current US solution to the dollar problem? Blame China and call for the revaluation of the yuan.”[x] Although all these news sources agree that Obama’s visit to China was not a thunderous success, the extent of that success, if any, is debatable.
Now that we’ve analyzed the coverage of these events, what does it tell us about the news sources? I’ve already divided these news sources into fairly liberal and fairly conservative camps. For instance, when Obama went to China, the liberal New York Times stated that he should be friendlier and less antagonistic to the Chinese while the conservative blogs stated that he should be firm and put America’s interests first. The Times focused on what China and Japan think of the United States while the blogs focused on American, Japanese, and Chinese policies. In other words, America’s image versus America’s policy. The liberal perspective can be summed up thus: if the United States has a positive image in the eyes of other countries then the policies will fall into place. On the other hand, the conservative perspective can be defined thus: we cannot make other nations like us so we must have strong policies in place based on our national self-interest. The coverage of Obama’s tour varied because of this fundamental difference in the purpose of diplomacy. How a news source chooses to cover a story is based on its beliefs.
Once Obama finished his trip, these news sources quickly summed up the trip and moved on to more immediate stories like the Health Care Bill in the Senate and Sarah Palin’s new book (!). While some issues like health care or the war in Afghanistan keep recurring over the long term, stories like diplomatic trips and book sales have a short life span. The story looms large for a week or two until it is completely replaced by the next big story.
We can conclude that all news coverage is not created equal. Different beliefs lead to different ways of covering events. For instance, conservative-leaning blogs emphasize the need to have strong policies abroad and liberal-leaning papers stress the need to harbor good feelings with other nations. When Obama went to Japan, the blogs were chagrined when he bowed to the emperor, but the New York Times thought the incident was trivial compared to his popularity with the Japanese people. The coverage was similar when he went to China; the blogs were embarrassed that Obama was not firm with China while the Times wanted Obama to reach out to the Chinese people more than he did. The events of Obama’s trip remain the same regardless of the coverage. He still said the same things and went to the same meetings. But the people who report and comment on these events are human. They have their own perspectives and values and they set their arguments and beliefs in their respective contexts. How can we find out what is happening if the news is so shaped by the people reporting it? What we can do as readers is to read all sides of the story, in this example, the liberal and conservative sides. That way, we can attain better information and become knowledgeable of both positions. Also, being more informed can help us make better decisions. We cannot take the biases out of the news but we can still know what’s happening in the world. Coverage may not be created equal, but maybe that is not such a bad thing after all.
Works Cited:
Cooper, Helene. “China Holds Firm on Major Issues in Obama’s Visit.” New York Times. New York Times, 18 Nov. 2009. Web. 18 Nov. 2009.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/18/world/asia/18prexy.html?scp=5&sq=obama%20in%20China&st=cse
Cooper, Helene. “Japan Cools as It Prepares for Obama Visit.” New York Times. New York Times, 12 Nov. 2009. Web. 18 Nov. 2009.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/12/world/asia/12prexy.html?scp=1&sq=Obama%20in%20Japan&st=cse
Cooper, Helene and Barboza, David. “Obama Wades Into Internet Censorship In China Address.” New York Times. New York Times, 17 Nov. 2009. Web 18 Nov. 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/17/world/asia/17shanghai.html?scp=1&sq=obama%20in%20China&st=cse
Cooper, Helene and Fackler, Martin. “Obama’s Pacific Trip Encounters Rough Waters.” New York Times. New York Times, 19 Nov. 2009. Web. 19 Nov. 2009.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/19/world/asia/19assess.html?scp=1&sq=obama's%20pacific%20trip%20encounters%20rough%20waters&st=cse
Johnson, Scott W. “Why Is This Man Bowing?” Powerline. Powerline, 14 Nov. 2009. Web. 18 Nov. 2009.
http://powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/11/024948.php
Kudlow, Larry. “President Zero Sum Goes to Asia.” National Review Online. National Review, 18 Nov. 2009. Web. 18 Nov. 2009.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZDgwMjBjODI5ZjZjYWNiZjc1NDBhMjFjOGUyYWFjMWE=
Morrissey, Ed. “China Hits the Mute Button on Obama.” Hot Air. Hot Air, 18 Nov. 2009. Web. 18 Nov. 2009.
http://hotair.com/archives/2009/11/18/china-hits-the-mute-button-on-obama/
“Obama, Stop Bowing to Foreign Leaders.” Uconn College Republicans. Uconn College Republicans, 15 Nov. 2009. Web 22 Nov. 2009.www.uconncollegerepublicans.com
Notes:
[i] Johnson, Scott W. “Why Is This Man Bowing?” par. 4. Powerline. 14 Nov. 2009
[ii] I first found a shorter version of this on Hot Air without the music. Apparently, the montage was done by Uconn’s college Republican club. I love the soundtrack on this!
[iii] Johnson, par. 6
[iv] Cooper, Helene and Fackler, Martin, “Obama’s Pacific Trip Encounters Rough Waters.” par. 10. 19 Nov. 2009
[v] I think it’s interesting how Klemens Wenzel von Metternich’s (1773-1859) theory of the balance of power is still very much with us today.
[vi] Cooper and Fackler, par. 9.
[vii] Morrissey, Ed. “China Hits the Mute Button on Obama.” par. 1. 18 Nov. 2009.
[viii] Cooper, Helene and Barboza, David. “Obama Wades Into Internet Censorship In China Address.” par. 8. 17 Nov. 2009.
[ix] Cooper, Helene. “China Holds Firm on Major Issues in Obama’s Visit.” par. 16. 18 Nov. 2009.
[x] Kudlow. Larry. “President Zero Sum Goes to Asia.” par. 10. 18 Nov. 2009.
I think you develope your essay very well to analyze the story subject. I would say that is your storngest area. The weak would be demonstrating how the story canges from "Monday to Sundayl." You have great support and do a great job getting your purpose through the page and to the reader. Let me know if you have got any specific questions.
ReplyDeleteI can see through this article that you really aim to develop and show what difference there are between the blog world and the news media side and you do this really well by showing the blogs. I wouldnt necessarily say there was a key passage to your paper due to the fact that it is mainly showing the difference but if I had to put one down, I would say that your conclusion is most important simply due to the fact that it sums everything up and explains the reasons for the difference. Like I already told you in class, I wasn't a huge fan of your introduction (not like it matters your paper is still amazing) but I really like how you simple went a lot with the story and showed piece by piece. Great work
ReplyDelete