A major incident that had happened this past week was the brutal collision between two high speed bullet trains in China. The collison caused "six cars derailed and four fell off a viaduct in the accident, which also injured 210 people." According to The New York Times, "at least forty-three people were killed." The New York Times also mentions that the Chinese had put the blame on nature. In saying that the first train had been struck by lightning and thereby stalled the train. However, The New York Times hinted that there might be a slant in the story. For example, they questioned that since the train was stalled, "why railway signals did not stop the second train before it hit the first one." The article in The New York Times, focused primarily on China's conditions on safety. The New York Times pointed out that it seems as if China was so concentrated on being technologically advanced, that they might have disregarded the safety plans. The reporter backed up this statement with examples of different high profile public transportations that had occurred in China this year. The article states, "Early Friday morning, 41 people were killed when an overloaded bus caught fire in central Henan Province. Earlier this month, an escalator at a new subway station in Beijing collapsed, killing one person and injuring 28. Last week alone, four bridges collapsed in various Chinese cities." The main source The New York Times used was a Chinese news agency, Xinhua news agency. Although this news was not "above the fold" quality it still serves as a major news story in that it is breaking news in another country, that requires updates, constantly.
Although The New York Times reported that at least forty-three people died, USA Today says that the death toll is thirty-six. USA Today also mentions that a toddler has been found alive twenty-one hours after the disaster. Both New York Times and USA Today have also made it clear that the Chinese governement had dismissed three railway officials to prevent any further inquiries. However, many Chinese netizens are still concerned over the fact that their safety is questioned in using the public transportations. USA Today's main focus was also based on the how safe these new technologically advanced machines are and how China backs themselves up in saying, "'China's high-speed rail technology is advanced, We still have confidence.'" USA Today's source is also the Xinhua News Agency with the addition of the China News Service. Funny how both papers got their sources from Xinhua, yet they have different death rates.
Another news source that had an article on the collision was BBC. BBC says, "At least 35 people have died and more than 200 are hurt after two high-speed trains crashed into each other in eastern China, state media reports." BBC's coverage on this disaster was brief. They just stated the death toll, the reason behind the accident and the fact that China wants to expand railways for these "bullet trains." BBC said that according to a survivor, "The train suddenly shook violently, casting luggage all around. Passengers cried for help but no crew responded." The source for BBC was also Xinhua News Agency.
Seeing that all these articles led to one source, I decided to look into a article in Xinhua's website. The article says, "At least 39 people died and 192 others were injured in the accident ." This is the most up to date article on the website, regarding the accident. Most of the information Xinhua has on the incident are on graphics. Xinhua had a lot of graphics showing the trains and the family members of passengers. Xinhua also mentions that compensatory payments are being paid out to the victims' family members. According to Xinhua the first compensatory payment of 77,500 U.S. dollars was made out by the local government in Wenzhou, where the collision happened. Xinhua had gotten their sources from interviews and government officials of Wenzhou. The article was surprisingly short and focused mainly on the death tolls.
The last source I went to was CNN. CNN's most recent article on the accident was on how the accident enraged netizens. According to CNN the netizens were mad that the Chinese government does not seem to care too much about this incident. CNN raised the point about how the Chinese government try to hide stories about disasters. According to CNN a defiant railway ministry spokesperson said, "How can we cover up an accident that the whole world already knew about?" CNN also reported that a netizen said, "This is a country where a thunderstorm can cause a train to crash, a car can make a bridge collapse and drinking milk can lead to kidney stones. Today's China is a bullet train racing through a thunderstorm -- and we are all passengers onboard." In other words, China is going way ahead of it's time and needs to slow down before more people get hurt.
This morning on my way to school, I came saw a Chinese guy reading a Chinese newspaper. I did not understand the words on the paper, but I certainly knew what the cover story was about. This was a tabloid paper, being that it is 11 by 14 inches. On the cover it showed a picture of a bullet train zooming by the railway, with the four carts of the collided trains on the ground, being buried. From that image I knew the cover story was about the collision between the two trains. This tabloid paper must also be a alternative paper in that it is in Chinese and is geared towards Chinese immigrants. The content of the alternative paper is different in comparasion to The New York Times. The difference is that The New York Times did not regard the news about the collision as "above the fold." While the Chinese tabloid paper did, because it is a alternative paper and the Chinese immigrants would like to know details about things that go on, back home. This goes to show the difference between alternative papers and a metropolitan paper like The New York Times.
Sources:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/25/world/asia/25train.html?ref=todayspaper
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2011-07-24-China-high-speed-train-collision-rail_n.htm
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-14262276
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/china/2011-07/26/c_131010783.htm
http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/asiapcf/07/25/china.train.accident.outrage/index.html?iref=allsearch
Although The New York Times reported that at least forty-three people died, USA Today says that the death toll is thirty-six. USA Today also mentions that a toddler has been found alive twenty-one hours after the disaster. Both New York Times and USA Today have also made it clear that the Chinese governement had dismissed three railway officials to prevent any further inquiries. However, many Chinese netizens are still concerned over the fact that their safety is questioned in using the public transportations. USA Today's main focus was also based on the how safe these new technologically advanced machines are and how China backs themselves up in saying, "'China's high-speed rail technology is advanced, We still have confidence.'" USA Today's source is also the Xinhua News Agency with the addition of the China News Service. Funny how both papers got their sources from Xinhua, yet they have different death rates.
Another news source that had an article on the collision was BBC. BBC says, "At least 35 people have died and more than 200 are hurt after two high-speed trains crashed into each other in eastern China, state media reports." BBC's coverage on this disaster was brief. They just stated the death toll, the reason behind the accident and the fact that China wants to expand railways for these "bullet trains." BBC said that according to a survivor, "The train suddenly shook violently, casting luggage all around. Passengers cried for help but no crew responded." The source for BBC was also Xinhua News Agency.
Seeing that all these articles led to one source, I decided to look into a article in Xinhua's website. The article says, "At least 39 people died and 192 others were injured in the accident ." This is the most up to date article on the website, regarding the accident. Most of the information Xinhua has on the incident are on graphics. Xinhua had a lot of graphics showing the trains and the family members of passengers. Xinhua also mentions that compensatory payments are being paid out to the victims' family members. According to Xinhua the first compensatory payment of 77,500 U.S. dollars was made out by the local government in Wenzhou, where the collision happened. Xinhua had gotten their sources from interviews and government officials of Wenzhou. The article was surprisingly short and focused mainly on the death tolls.
The last source I went to was CNN. CNN's most recent article on the accident was on how the accident enraged netizens. According to CNN the netizens were mad that the Chinese government does not seem to care too much about this incident. CNN raised the point about how the Chinese government try to hide stories about disasters. According to CNN a defiant railway ministry spokesperson said, "How can we cover up an accident that the whole world already knew about?" CNN also reported that a netizen said, "This is a country where a thunderstorm can cause a train to crash, a car can make a bridge collapse and drinking milk can lead to kidney stones. Today's China is a bullet train racing through a thunderstorm -- and we are all passengers onboard." In other words, China is going way ahead of it's time and needs to slow down before more people get hurt.
This morning on my way to school, I came saw a Chinese guy reading a Chinese newspaper. I did not understand the words on the paper, but I certainly knew what the cover story was about. This was a tabloid paper, being that it is 11 by 14 inches. On the cover it showed a picture of a bullet train zooming by the railway, with the four carts of the collided trains on the ground, being buried. From that image I knew the cover story was about the collision between the two trains. This tabloid paper must also be a alternative paper in that it is in Chinese and is geared towards Chinese immigrants. The content of the alternative paper is different in comparasion to The New York Times. The difference is that The New York Times did not regard the news about the collision as "above the fold." While the Chinese tabloid paper did, because it is a alternative paper and the Chinese immigrants would like to know details about things that go on, back home. This goes to show the difference between alternative papers and a metropolitan paper like The New York Times.
Sources:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/25/world/asia/25train.html?ref=todayspaper
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2011-07-24-China-high-speed-train-collision-rail_n.htm
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-14262276
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/china/2011-07/26/c_131010783.htm
http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/asiapcf/07/25/china.train.accident.outrage/index.html?iref=allsearch
I remember seeing this, as my parents were watching the news, but I didn't quit understand how bad it was until now because I didn't understand mandarin.
ReplyDelete