FAKE APPLE STORES!!!

Looking at the News and not trying to write about biggest story out there, which are the Norway events. I came across a story a story in China where some story come the apple story. These stores would call them self the apple story, set the store up the same way the apple store would set its store up, and even sell apple products.

In the BBC News where I found this article talks about how there is a fake Apple store in Kunming city. It also talk about how most of the customers didn’t have a problem buying there apple products here because the store isn’t selling fake apple products. The article also talked about how the people who work at these stores really thought they were working at the Apple store and that it wasn’t a knock off store.

The NY Times also had an Article talking it the same matter. It talked about some of the flaws the fake apple stores have. The fake apple stores would have the name the apple store along with the apple. It also talks about how some people went to apple the real store and return their products. Apple force two out of five of the fake store to close down. Those two store didn't have the right license to sell products.
The other three store are still open as we speak. Apple is trying to take the stores to court.

I think there is nothing wrong with having a look a like selling apples products. The reason why is because there is no apple store in the area, what are the people in the area going to do if they want to buy an apple product. People are still buying apple products, and it's not like apple isn't making money. The products the people are buying are not knockoffs. I feel they are expanding apple more to areas that are not as big. I would understand if a real apple store was in the area and people rather go to the fake store because it is cheaper and it is killing the real apple store business, but that's not the case.

LET THE KNOCKOFF STAY OPEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Post 2

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

Same-Sex Couples Get Married in New York

After the State Senate approved same-sex marriage in New York, hundreds of gay and lesbian couples anticipated the first day it would be legal for them to receive marriage licenses. Many New York residents as well as out-of-state couples celebrated on July 24, lining up outside town halls and clerks' offices across New York to get married with their children and family members by their side to support them on the exciting day. The majority of the marriage licenses were distributed in New York City, almost three hundred in Manhattan which received the most coverage about the day's events. Couples varied in age, the first to wed being Phyllis Siegel and Connie Kopelov who were 76 and 84 years old. Many of the couples who received marriage licenses expressed their joy pertaining to the new found recognition of their union in New York.

July 24th was a victorious day for New York's LGBT community, with coverage on many of the city's weddings making newspaper headlines. The story in The New York Times was titled "After Long Wait, Same-Sex Couples Marry in New York. Barabaro covered many of the political issues pertaining to the day - focusing on Maryland and the legal and political obstacles, the protesters and demonstrations that were held, as well as Bloomberg and Cuomo's participation in the weddings in New York. Some couples were highlighted, sharing little on the stories behind the newlyweds. And since The New York Times is known as the "paper of record", it left room for a particular stance on the issue of same-sex marriage.

In comparison to The New York Times, BBC News and USA Today had little to say about the politics of the day but rather more of a leveled overview of the couples and marriages that were held. BBC News, as well as USA Today and The New York Times mention that New York is the sixth and largest US State to legalize same-sex marriage. However, BBC News had little to say about the events of the day, with no mention of protesters but rather highlighting a few couples that were excited to participate in the first legal gay weddings in New York.

USA Today mentioned protests that went on in New York, but did not go further into explaining its effects. The focus was more so on the different couples that were married. The article was interview driven, with little about the day's events and shining light on the stories behind certain couples that were married. Since there was so much background information on the couples, there was little opinion on the matter. Reading how the couples met instead of the happenings of the day was a little less focused than The New York Times.

The two additional sources that I chose to read about the recent news of the first same-sex weddings were from The Village Voice and Advocate.com, an e-newsletter that focuses on LGBT news. The Village Voice was the only source that I read that focused on weddings outside of Manhattan. The title of the article was "Calm in Queens on First Day of Gay Marriage in New York." It highlighted weddings in Queens and only a few couples that were wed at Queens Borough Hall. The text was interrupted with pictures of couples signing the marriage licenses and happy newlyweds. The E-Newsletter, the Advocate, touched upon the more internal LGBT issues that were not expressed in The New York Times or USA Today. For example, last year's controversy over domestic partnerships and same-sex couple having a second class status was more of the takeaway from the article. Although the couple were thrilled, deeper issues pertaining to the LGBT community were revealed in Sunday's victory as well.

I chose these two sources since the Village Voice was more local, reporting on marriages in Queens rather than just Manhattan. It had more of an alternative press coverage, that not all people in New York would be able to learn about. The Advocate had more of a political stance. And even though same-sex couples celebrated the fact that their marriage was legal and recognized, The Advocate focused on other issues that need to be addressed as well, such as marriage rights for the rest of the country.

Death of Amy Winehouse

A Tragic Event widely recognized this past week is the death of Amy Winehouse. The 27 year old British Singer was found dead in her London apartment on July 23rd. The Death of this world famous singer has been streaming through the media, via twitter, facebook, television, and worldwide newspapers, yet not one source can openly admit the cause of her decease.

According to the BBC news, reasons for Winehouses death "was investigated by police, and determined as unsuspicious." After determining the investigation as unsuspicious, the article proceeds to declare that "results of further toxicology tests could take up to four weeks." Without the toxicology tests, how can the death scene be ruled out so freely as unsuspicious? I find that the BBC news is a media source that doesn't focus so much on the important aspects of the case, rather on the unnecessary details such as current tweets related to the subjects death, followed by quotes of other singers praising Amys career. The BBC news doesn't seem like the most reliable source of media, especially in a case like this one.

The New York Times on the other hand, provides a deeper analysis on the event of Amy Winehouses death, and is written with more emotion and depth. The Times as well, declares the reasons for her death as "not immediately know," and claims that "at this early stage it is being treated as unknown." Though the times is dismissing any knowledge regarding the reasons of Amys death, this media source insinuates the involvement of drugs. The relationship between fame and drugs is mentioned within the article, as well as her previous drug history, and public arrests. Unlike the BBC, the New York Times seems like it has all the information, but choses to share it with the reader in a more discrete manner.

Believe it or not, the newspaper that is known for its briefness, written for those with "30-second attention spans," was the article that i found the most appealing, providing a thorough amount of information. Though it doesnt offer any more answers than the other two sources, the USA Today provides the most gossip relating to Amy Winehouses Death. the USA Today recognizes Winehouses past tabloid coverage, and coins it as 'inspiring.' Her past newsworthy scandals are revived in this article, leaving the reader with an indirect notion that her death was drug related.

Perez Hilton, one of the most popular online media sources, openly states that drugs arent responsable for the singers death, rather it was brought on by a massive seizure. Though its not the most reliable, this online gossip column is less censored than the nationally published newpapers, revealing more information in a more truthful respect.

Each and every media source has a different way in depicting and relaying breaking news information. A single story can be dissected in many different ways, and the news source is responsible for determining what to share with the rest of the world.

New News: Amy Winehouse

Every possible news company there could be covered Amy Winehouse’s death. The manner in which they choose to cover related stories to their readers is different depending on the publication. Each news writer covers the story in his own particular way, but the writer’s politics and style always reflect the publication is writing for. The way in which Amy Winehouse's death is covered by any particular publication reflects on their politics.

The first thing you notice about the Amy Winehouse articles from the New York Times, BBC and USA Today is the style of the webpage these articles are displayed on. The Times article is displayed on a page format they use with all their articles the only difference in page format between articles if the title and the article nothing else about the page. The page remains white with advertisements and links remaining in the same position as they were on their homepage.

Dominique Stauss kahn accuser gives first interview

For the first time the woman Nafissatou Diallo the one who accused Dominick Strauss khan the former IMF president of rape, is speaking out. That is really what attracted me when I went to BBC today through the net. In fact since the beginning of this scandal in may 14, Nafissatou a immigrant from guinea refused to speck out in public but now that Strauss Khan is about to be announced not guilty by the court most likely she decided to come out and continue the battle. According to judges who are in charge of the case , there are many unclear things concernin the maid Diallo which bring a lot of doubt about his testimony. In fact Nafissatou did lye about many thing according to the persecutor such as the fact that she was rape in guinea in order to receive asylum paper, also the fact that she claim , she did not know that 10000 dollars was in her bank account , all those things are what make his case very doubtful. And also what make them even more doubtful is that just after she was raped, she made a phone call to one person who was in jail , saying that she was raped by a man who had a lot of money and She knew what she was doing. Many thing that that phone called was the thing that bring all these doubt about her. She definitely may be raped but because of that phone call , people thing will think she is after the money nothing else and that all these accusation is just a black mail.
One thing about the man being accused is that he is usually accused of that type of crime and because he is so powerful , he always get a way with it . This case is the first one where he really suffer but again His power and the fact that he had good lawyers will most likely set him free again. Rape case is a very tuff case to deal with and generally those who are victim of it don’t want to speak out because of the problem they encounter. I hope this one will set an good example for those who are victim of it to come forward and denounce their rapists. I am sure this first interview of Nafissatou Diallo will be one among many other that will come. Right now she is not the one who is accusing Strauss Khan , in France also where he was born, a writer and the mother of the writers are accusing him of sexual assault. That shows that this man need to be judged and his situation clarify .

Another point I would like to talk about is the actualities these day concerning the political situation in Senegal and a lot of media back home are talking about it . In fact what I read in seneweb.com is that the population is manifesting again the President Abdoulaye Wade who want to put his son Karim Wade in power. The manifestation have brought massive destruction in the capital Dakar and some people have died. Up to now some parts of the capital are on curfew and the army is taking control of many places. Senegalese people now want the president to resign because he is to old to lead the country but also the Senegalese people think that the bad situation where the country is nowadays is his fault . Now in Senegal people don’t have electricity, food is very expensive and young people don’t have job. Those who are on power are taking all the resources for themselves with bring a big situation of inequality. Senegalese people want a new government with a new president who will help them deal with their daily situation and help them to solve their problem. The funny thing about Abdoulaye wade is that before he came to power, he stayed 27 years in the opposition and people thought that once he gain power since he already know the suffering of the population he will help them a lot but it was not the case once he come to power he changed totally and he is doing whatever he want to do without any consideration. HE totally forget about the pass and the promises he made while he was in the opposite side. Now people are feed up and they want him to resign and leave the county. Now most of the Senegalese media are talking about it and people are so concern in politics than ever before. The thing is the next election is coming on February 2012 if Abdoulaye remain , Senegal will be in civil war like most of African country and it will be a pity because up to now Senegal is an example of democratie in Africa but the actual president is trying to ruin that.

Another important news that really caught my eyes lately was the Norway bombing attacks that killed 91 peoples. According to the article, it is the deadliest attack in Norway since world war II .Norway seems to be one among the country most peaceful in the world and this kind of attacks are not expected to happen in here that is why its very shocking for a lot of people up to know. The one who did that, is claiming that he is fighting again Islam invasion in Europe in general and particularly in Norway .Anders Behring a 32 year old man is been identify as a right wing fundamentalist Christian and that’s tells a lot about the person. According to the article, he is a person who love guns and was planning to perpetuate the attack a very long time . So my concern will be why Norway authorities did not take him very seriously since they knew all about him and what he was planning for? it’s a very sad what is going on in Norway these days and I definitely think that from know one the population will be very careful and the issue of Norway police having guns and used it at the right time will be raised and adopted so that police men will carry guns and used them against bad people like Anders and protect the population.



http://www.seneweb.com/

http://www.newyorktimes.com/

http://www.bbc.co.uk/

New News: Serbia Arrests Last Fugitive Accused of War Crimes

New News: Serbia Arrests Last Fugitive Accused of War Crimes Against Croats

I chose to write about this topic because of two reasons: 1) with everything else going on in the world, this has largely been ignored and 2) it’s news that affects me personally. From 1991 until 1995, Croatia was in a war with Serbian rebel forces led by Goran Hadzic as well as other Serb leaders who believed that Croatia should not be independent from former Yugoslavia. Approximately 10,000 people were killed in this war and 161 people had been indicted with the most recent (before Hadzic) having been Serbian military commander Ratko Mladic less than two months ago. *Note that this event is different from the massacre in Srebrenica, Bosnia & Herzegovina on July 11, 1995.

According to the article, “Goran Hadzic refuses to plea before UN war crimes court” on the BBC News website, Hadzic faces 14 war crimes charges which include: persecution, extermination and torture. Hadzic had also been on the run for 7 years after having been indicted in 2004 and then disappeared. He is also being held responsible for the massacre in Vukovar in 1991 in which 300 men were killed and 20,000 people had been deported from the town in Croatia after it had been captured. The BBC source also writes, “Correspondents say the country hopes the arrests and extraditions will allow it to draw a line under the war crimes story and move closer to European Union membership” something that has been preventing them from obtaining membership. The article also lists the counts against Goran Hadzic separate from the rest of the story, perhaps in an effort to make it clear what he is being held accountable for. These counts include: one count of persecution of Croats and other non-Serbs, three counts of extermination and murder of hundreds of Croats and non-Serbs, five counts of imprisonment, torture, inhumane acts and cruel treatment against detainees of camps where torture and sexual assault were common, two counts of deportation and forcible transfer of up to 90,000 Croats and non-Serbs from parts of Croatia and three counts of wanton destruction and plunder of public and private property. The article on the BBC website is short and to the point. It explains who Hadzic is, what crimes he committed and when these occurred. The end paragraph about the European Union membership is the reason why my father believes that the government in Serbia had known where these last two fugitives were the whole time but that’s just a biased opinion with no real facts to back them up.

The New York Times article by Marlise Simons is set in Paris, France. Simons also writes, in the opening of her article, “The last Serbian fugitive wanted by a United Nations war crimes tribunal was arrested in a Serbian forest early Wednesday, a quiet event that appeared to remove the final major obstacle blocking the nation’s access to Western money and European membership”. This article unlike the BBC one tells readers that Goran Hadzic was arrested in the village of Krusedol in Northern Serbia. The reason he was found and captured is said to be that he was attempting to sell a painting by Modigliani because he ran out of money after being on the run for seven years and that this painting was listed as one of several by the artist to have been stolen. Police said that he was armed and had changed his appearance when he was arrested. Simons writes that he was a former warehouse worker and joined rebel Serbs in 1991 to seize one third of Croatia and turn it into a territory for Serbs only. The article in The New York Times is a little longer than the BBC article and includes a photo of Hadzic having been arrested. Both articles are similar in their information as well as having similar headlines.

The article on the USA Today website, “Serbia arrests last Balkan war crimes fugitive” differs from the BBC and The New York Times articles due largely to the fact that it includes a video from the Associated Press. The video along with the article that Western-leaning Serbian President Boris Tadic said, “It was our moral duty. We have done this for the sake of citizens of Serbia, we have done this for the sake of the victims among other nations, we have done this for the sake of reconciliation”. The AP states that Hadzic rose to fame due to his links to former Serbian leader Slobodan Milosevic and his secret police. The tragedy in Vukovar in 1991 was said to be the “first European city entirely destroyed since World War II”. Again this article mentions the fact that this arrest along with his indiction and the indiction of recently arrested Ratko Mladic and Radovan Karadzic who was a fugitive from 1996 until his arrest in 2008 are important to helping Serbia’s case in becoming a member of the European Union. With the inclusion of the video, it makes the article interactive an idea that is discussed in chapter six of Hanson’s book in the section “What the Web Offers Newspapers”. Hanson writes, “Newspaper Web sites are particularly good at presenting interactive features on breaking news” (216).

Fox News has a slightly different article from the Associated Press than the one on the USA Today website. The article is shorter than the others and includes a picture of Goran Hadzic and includes background information about the war and how many people died. A major difference I noticed was that this article states that Hadzic had been on the run for eight years, one more year from what the other articles had stated. According to a website for The International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, Case No. IT-04-75-I lists Goran Hadzic’s indictment and is dated May 21, 2004 which means that he had decided to disappear shortly after his indictment. The Fox News website article also ends by stating that “Serbia’s wartime president Milosevic was extradited to the Hague tribunal in 2001 and died there in 2006, while on trial for genocide”.

In an attempt to read about this event from a different perspective, I found an article on the website for Democracy Now! The website includes a brief synopsis-like description of the arrest of Goran Hadzic. The website has a video that includes other headline making news for July 21, 2011. The feature appears among a list of other events that had occurred on that day. The report on the arrest of Hadzic appears around the seventeenth minute of the approximately eighteen minute long video. Although it doesn’t contain much information, this website seems to give an AM New York/Metro type of report on important events and the use of the video report adds to the interactive feature that news websites can include separating them from newspapers. The caption on the website reads: “A daily TV/radio news program, hosted by Amy Goodman and Juan Gonzalez, airing over 900 stations, pioneering the largest community media collaboration in the United States. The video is also available in Real Video Stream, Real Audio Stream, MP3 download and more and can be shared via email and social marketing websites.

References:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-14281390

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/21/world/europe/21goran-hadzic.html?_r=1&ref=serbia

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2011-07-20-serbia-war-crimes_n.htm

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/07/20/report-serbia-arrests-last-un-war-crimes-fugitive/

http://www.icty.org/x/cases/hadzic/ind/en/had-ii040716e.htm

http://www.democracynow.org/2011/7/21/headlines#16

Hanson, Ralph E. "Chapter 6." Mass Communication: Living in a Media World. Washington, D.C.: CQ, 2008. Print.

The Oslo Massacre

The horrific tragedy that unfolded at Norway this past week shook the world. For a nation that is rated the second happiest country in the world by Forbes, this tragedy came as a shock to many because of its brutality and also its senselessness. At the time, it was believed that the suspect,Anders Behring Breivik, acted alone in the massacre. However, today, the headlines of major newspapers reveal that the suspect claims to have accomplices. 


The NY Times' headline reads, "Norway Suspect Denies Guilt and Suggests He Did Not Act Alone". USA Today headline reads, "Norway to probe 'more cells' in suspect's extremist group". BBC headline reads, "Norway gunman has accomplices". Of these three papers, the headlines of NY Times and USA Today sound most objective using words like "suspect", "suggest", and "probe" while BBC headline seems to have already determined the gunman has accomplices. Two alternative press that I chose, are the two local Chinese newspaper in NYC, the Singtao and the World Journal. The translated headline of Singtao's article reads, "Norway Cold Blooded Murderer To Get 21 Year Jail Time", and the translated headline of the World Journal article reads, "Entire Country in Grief, Tearful Mourns in Missa". Both headlines are neither objective, but instead evoke a feeling of fury against the murderer. 


The NY Times article provided two pages of content covering the escort of the Norway suspect. They have quotes from a college professor, Breivik, Breivik's father, the judge presiding over the case, the crown prince, a couple of mourners who have slightly different attitudes towards Breivik. One mourner was a McDonalds employee who had one friend killed by Breivik and another remains injured. Another mourner was a lawyer who noted the emotional aftermath of the tragedy. The NY Times painted a more complete picture of the people's feelings by quoting various sources. 


Meanwhile, USA Today took a more Twitter like update approach to writing this article. One update involved quotes from the suspect's father, that was translated by Google Translate. I'm not against Google at all, but I think it might have been better for USA Today to get a real translator. Besides the suspect's father, the presiding judge was also quoted. Unlike NY Times, USA Today does not really delve into the reactions of the nation's people towards the incident. The updates provided are short, precise, and not very in depth. 


On the third hand, BBC News has a much more interactive article than NY Times and USA Today. BBC article has multiple videos along with some eagle eye maps depicting the whereabouts of the attacks. There's also a commentary on the side of the article by the editor, Gavin Hewitt, comparing this Norway attacker with the Oklahoma bomber. Contrary to its bold headline, BBC's article was quite objective side towards the incident. It also cover a fuller story than both the NY Times and USA Today. The BBC article touched on a secret service alert of the suspect back in March, a news that neither NY Times nor USA Today reported. 


The World Journal presented four additional shorter articles right under the main article about the Norway suspect. The first article gave an objectified view of the incident, by providing straightforward information including the news that the ingredients for the suspect's bomb were made in China. The second article was about the father's reaction to his son's murderous act. The third article was about how the Norwegian people are in disbelief over the attacks. The fourth article presented the survivors' side of the story. The World Journal presented the incident through multiple articles that viewed the incident from different angles. However, it is not very in depth. The Singtao Paper, on the other hand, displayed a huge picture of the suspect in the police car and a short article regarding the incident. The article talked about Norwegian people's disappointment about the possibility that the murderer will get only 21 years in jail because according to Norway's laws, the highest lawful punishment is 21 years in jail. They quoted an Oslo criminal justice professor. However, the article also points out that the sentence can be constantly extended by 5 years. 

I chose to read about the recent bombing in Norway. It was a very tragic act of terrorism in which almost 100 innocent lives were taken. A right-wing Christian, Anders Breivik, bombed a government building in Oslo on Friday in an attempt to punish Norwegians for allowing Muslim immigration. He had very clearly stated his radical political views on Internet blogs and facebook. After reading articles from the three required websites, I thought I had learned everything I needed to know about incident. The reason was because the same information was in all three of those articles. The same point of view was being repeated, so I assumed that this must be the “right” information. I only found a different point of view on the subject when I read articles from CNN and salon.com (an online magazine).

The first few articles I read were from the very popular news websites: NY Times, BBC, USA today, etc, and those stories were similar in terms of slant. The length differences seemed to only be details (or lack thereof) about police responding times or other unimportant pieces of information that shift the articles’ focuses away from the actual reasons behind the attack. I think a lot of what’s written in these news articles is fluff. There are many phrases used like “it seems to be” and “according to so-and-so…”. It almost seems like these stories contain the same information that is just being re-circulated over and over. At a certain point, we don’t know who actually came up with these facts or even opinions; all we know is that every news headline is exactly the same.

The articles from the New York times, BBC, and USA today all stated that Breivik was just a madman, and there was no direct evidence that his actions on Friday were motivated by politics. However, in the CNN article, Breivik said that the bombing and shooting were, in fact, necessary to prevent the colonization of Muslims in Norway. This piece of information completely changes the story. The other articles seemed to almost be defending Breivik by saying that he’s just a man who is out of his mind. According to CNN, he’s out of his mind and his outrageous actions were definitely based on his personal political beliefs.

My favorite article that I read was from salon.com, a liberal online magazine. Instead of scraping the surface of the issue, this one dug a bit deeper. Many quotes from Breivik himself, or the politicians he follows, proved his intentions. Thinking about the aesthetic dimension, this article was presented in a more honest way. The straightforward facts made more sense to me than the vague comments I mentioned previously.

As much as I preferred to read the independent, left-wing article over the others, it was very specific and didn’t cover as much of the whole story. I think it’s important for people to get broad coverage from popular news companies because they all tend to recycle the same information. Independent news sites don’t; new points of view are introduced, and a fuller understanding of a story can be obtained.

References:

Hanson, Ralph E. "Chapter 6." Mass Communication: Living in a Media World. Washington, D.C.: CQ, 2008. Print.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-14259989

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/23/world/europe/23oslo.html?ref=europe

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/ondeadline/post/2011/07/judge-orders-closed-hearing-for-suspect-in-norway-killings/1

http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/europe/07/25/norway.terror.attacks/index.html?hpt=wo_c1

http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/07/25/norway_righties/index.html

News Event - The Debt Ceiling Debate (or Circus as I like to Call it) - Kunal

(Photo taken from NPR article, link below. Who knew such a thing existed?)

Of all the stories I’ve seen over the past week, none have been as prevalent or annoying as the whole debt ceiling debacle. Recently, it was announced that the house and senate, controlled by Republicans and Democrats respectively, broke off negotiations and came up with their own plans. The media coverage for this whole debate and this turn of events has just been the usual political circus as I call it. In other words, it’s just the usual chaos of the rhetoric and on and off negotiations of the politicians until a last second deal that doesn’t really do much. It illustrates Hanson’s 4^th media truth that nothings new and the past repeats. This coverage was highly reminiscent of the political circus that surrounded the budget and possible shutdown a few months ago.

USA Today, despite being a national paper, only offered a very brief article which outlined the basic plans that House speaker Boehner and Senate majority leader Harry Reid came up with and included statements from White House spokesperson Carney and speaker Boehner. The briefness of the article and coverage of both plans and speakers on both ends indicates that USA Today took no side on the issue. It’s also evident given that it barely even addresses the debt ceiling debate at large. It showed the objective style of the penny press to maximize readers but differed in that it covered political issues.

The New York Times’ coverage was much more comprehensive as it addressed other issues and considerations surrounding the plan like the introduction of a new bipartisan committee that could deal with budgeting and bypass traditional blocks like filibusters, and some additional details of both plans like their reach in terms of time and extra provisions. To my surprise, it also followed an objective and fact-based style despite being a metropolitan paper primarily for a place as liberal as New York City. Nonetheless, it provides liberal content for its primary city in its opinion pieces on the debt limit debate which eliminate the need to deviate from a fact-based style on stories like this.

BBC’s coverage went beyond just the debt ceiling plans themselves. They even included the effects the whole charade was having on markets around the world and it also included comment and suggestions from international organizations such as the International Monetary Fund for things like entitlement reform and revenue increases. Although it did show some leaning by giving the senate plan a bit more coverage and quoting it more often, they did give sufficient coverage of how things were playing out with the 2 parties and also showed the house plan. It was definitely the most comprehensive article on the main three sources and didn’t go far enough in any respect to take a side. It displayed a bit more analysis than the other two sources with the section on global markets; however, like the previous two sources, it did not show any sense of activism.

One alternative outlet I chose to look at was Fox News because of their clear conservative bias and frequent favoritism of Republicans. I wanted to see if they could present an issue like this without playing favorites. To my honest surprise, the article didn’t really contain any clear evidence of reading and actually gave details on the plans of both parties and what the leaders hoped to do. It also quoted rhetoric of both parties. It might be because their information came from Associated Press and could have been based solely on that. Nonetheless, I was surprised that Fox News was able to simply report some facts on the debt ceiling plans and not take the site that better suites their business agenda. However, I assume they will do so in opinion pieces like the New York Times does and also possibly in other articles on the subject.

Another alternative outlet I looked at was the Nation Public Radio website because I wanted to see how a publicly owned outlet like them would report this as opposed to more common private outlets. It was by far the most comprehensive coverage I’ve ever seen on the turn of events to separate plans in this whole debate. It frequently updated its coverage to give a good amount of detail and rhetoric from both parties plans. It also gave background information to how the debate got to this point such as Boehner walking out of negotiations and the schism in the Republican Party between the leaders and tea partiers. It was also comprehensive in the fact that it covered information from many other sources as well, such as the New York Times.

The Web has proved to be the most reliable source of information thanks to the availability of various different sources of information, ranging from big media to the long tail of the news industry like local papers or websites.

Websites used linked below

NPR Article

USA Today Article

BBC Article

NY Times Article

Fox News Article