"Red Shirted'

American journalist love to romanticize the plight of protesters and uprisings in other countries. We love the idea of the meek coming together to triumph over the large and mighty. It might be a small protest or a riot, but we don't care, we eat it up regardless. So how do journalist manage to do this... depends on who you talk to. I looked at two stories covering the Red Shirt movement in Thailand and the political overthrow in Kyrgyzstan and analyzed the slant that was present against the existing governments in favor of the opposition.

Red Shirts in Bangkok

The New York Times covered the protest in Thailand, where protesters blocked access to the cities commercial districts. These protesters that came from the poorer, rural areas of Thailand were calling for the government to dissolve parliament. In their coverage they have quotes from four people: Nitipong, a protester; Mr. Abhisit, the prime minister; Kasit Piromya, the current foreign minister involved in the protests; and Samai Suporn, and older protester. There was one other silent source, Nan.

All of these sources made the protests seem diverse. They quote a government official, two college graduates, one a chemist and the other a computer salesman, and a poor rural farm woman. Doing this allows the reader to connect with the protesters.

The New York Times never speaks to a Bangkok resident affected by the protests. That is the third dimension that we are missing. The story paints the government in a very negative light. the prime minister's quotes makes it seem as if the government doesn't care about the citizens. If the story had a quote from a disgruntled Bangkok citizen, they would be more inclined to side with the government. The protesters are comparable to union workers slowing things down.

Nitipong- "There's not a jail big enough to fit us all"
The New York Times made it a point to say he didn't give his full name for fear of government retribution... When we think of "government retribution" our minds instantly jump to the most extreme forms of political repression, i.e. gulags. This is the first quote of the story and it makes the protesters seem heroic.

Kasit Piromya- "It was a lot of fun"
The current foreign minister was joining in during the protest. In my mind, she would be considered the former foreign minister... She has obviously abandoned her governmental duties.

Samai Suporn- "I'm not jealous of the rich"
On thing I don't understand about this story is how the New York Times protects its sources. You would think they would conceal the last name of everyone at the protest. Samai is a 50-year-old rice farmer from Northeast Thailand. As the protest leaders try to make this a class war issue, she says the exact opposite. Why would the Times include this? I would guess that "class warfare" insinuates a move towards communism and we all know how much America hates communists. She provides a good balance to the story. Even though the movement consists of mostly poor people, she is the only poor person represented.

Abhisit Vejjajiva- "legal proceedings and prosecution"
Somehow the article makes Mr. Abhisit seem like the bad guy. He just trying to keep the situation from blowing out of control (He doesn't have control either way). He is taking a nonviolent approach to handle this situation. the report writes that he "vowed" legal proceedings and prosecution. vow adds an extra charge to his statements.

Nan- Silent Source
Nan is a female protester that is a chemist that received a master's degree from Chulalongkorn University. She declined to provide her name... but why should she even be included in the story? She doesn't have a speaking part.

Coup d'etat in Kyrgyzstan

An overthrow of the government took place in Kyrgyzstan leaving 40 people dead and nearly 400 wounded. The story has three quotes... all from opposition leaders. None of the wounded were quoted. Maybe they refused to comment for fear of retaliation. Maybe the New York Times didn't seek a quote from them. Either way, the first quote of the story is "Power is now in the hands of the people's government" from Roza Otunbayeva, a figure for the opposition.

Police fired into the crowd
The police fired live ammunition into the crowd... so the story goes. No police are quoted. The picture on the front page is a group of police officers huddled behind shields as they are being decimated by rocks! How is the first story the only one that got through? the only quote about the actual violence comes from a human rights activist against the government. I'm sure this story has much more to be told.

Final Thoughts
As Americans, we have no idea about the political situation in either of these countries, but the slant of the stories makes the protesters seem like they are on the right side of the issue. the entire conflict in Kyrgyzstan is viewed through one set of sources that make the government seem as if they killed all 40 victims. Imagine if we were looking at our own country with thousands of Tea Party members protesting the idea of universal health care. Even though the world (all the developed parts of it) regard universal health care as a given, we would still assume the protesters are on the right side of the issue because we believe no one would protest a good idea. We, in America, are predisposed to hate government interference with our lives. In our minds (and our newspapers) less government is better, even if it has to be destroyed. In both of these stories, we never get to hear the government speak on the issue directly to the press.

Headlines, Pictures and "The Fold"

When a newspaper is presented in a stack or on a stand, all anyone can see is the top half of the front page above "the fold". On this top half you are presented with both headlines and photographs, but they may not go together... they might even be telling a fictitious story. I believe that newspapers are using the layout of their front page to, not only, sell papers, but to add another dimension to the framing wars. I analyzed the front pages of the New York Times, The State and The Wall Street Journal for the week of March 15. It seems The State and WSJ have something to say...

Mechanics of a Front Page

Headlines
Headlines come in font sizes ranging from 18 (1/4 in.) to 72 (1 in.). Although these measurements may seem small, they are huge in print.

Display
the central front page image is large, sometimes exceeding 5x7 in. This picture is in color and often emotionally charged. the other images on the front page are significantly smaller (1x1.5 in.).

Layout
How the stories of the day are position on the paper establish their importance. Obviously, the biggest, most-centralize headline will be seen as the most important news of the day. "The Fold", as I like to call it, is the midpoint of paper. the biggest display and headlines are always above the fold.

Apples and Oranges

Looking at the front page of any newspaper, one would assume that the biggest headline goes with the biggest picture and that picture would not only be above the fold, but close to the display. It is just the opposite. Both The State and The Wall Street Journal manipulated its layout, headlines and displays to alter the news. I've rewritten the headlines to capture how they appear at first glance.

"Mark Sanford Crying": the State- Friday, March 19

The Headline states "Sanford admits no wrongdoing" and the biggest graphic is of Mark Sanford crying... no.. It's William Palmer in a totally unrelated story. This layout makes it seem that Sanford is admitting no wrongdoing in his adultery. the man has his eyes covered in the picture, so it's hard to tell who he is at first glance. the Headline is font size 63 (7/8 in.) and the picture is 5X7.5 in.

"War with China": The Wall Street Journal- Monday, March 15

The headline reads, "China Talks Tough to U.S." Then the display shows the most bad-ass bunch of American action heroes running with guns. those soldiers are in Afghanistan, but that story is on A10. It seems as if WSJ is trying to fuel Chinese/American tensions. The headline is font 36 (1/2 in.)

"China Steals Our Medicine": The Wall Street Journal- Wednesday, March 17
The two unrelated headlines read together as "Business Sours on China; Lilly Hit in Massive Pill Heist." Sounds as if China is steal pharmaceuticals from Ely Lilly. the other headline should be below the fold. I think WSJ has something against China... Twice in one week? the headline font is 36 (1/2 in.)

"Dems Get Health Care Votes by Force":
Wall Street Journal- Thursday, March 18
The closest headline to the display reads "Democrats Hunt Votes For Deals on Health". this interpretation makes it seem as if the Democrats are dragging innocent people by force, against their will, to approve health care. the display is of a Cuban protest. The display title is tiny (less than 2/8 in.) compare to the unrelated headline right next to it (almost 3/8 in.)

The Wall Street Journal vs. the New York Times

In my analysis, I found that the New York Times didn't do any funny headline/display tricks. In fact, their headlines never exceeded 18 point font (2/8 in.). The Wall Street Journal is a conservative newspaper and it all seems to make sense.

Final Remarks

Copy editors strategically position each headline and each display in every paper. the front page is the most important part of a newspaper. People can see the front page of a newspaper without even buying it. This is a crucial battleground in the framing wars because newspapers take up real estate. You can avoid seeing a website, but you can't avoid glancing a newspaper.

Two Views, One Plan: Feb. 22, 2010

There is one debate that has been raging since before Obama took office... Health Care. On Feb. 22, I grabbed two articles, one by CNN and the other by Fox, and sat down with them. I wanted to analyze the coverage of health care on that day to see what someone reading on Feb. 22 would be exposed to from both sides. I looked at the layout of each article and assessing their headlines, content, word choice, and overall slant to try and understand the frame of each article. I have ruled that the Fox News article was less partisan (though still conservative) than CNN which has taken a more leftist view. I have the analysis to prove it.


HEADLINES

Headlines are important. they are the most important thing on a newspaper or website. In fact, 44 percent of Google users just skim headlines without ever reading the articles.

CNN- How Obama wants to pay for health reform

CNN's headline was pretty straight forward, however, the use of the word "reform" can be touchy. A reform is a beneficial change, and by saying reform instead of plan gives the image that it is necessarily a good idea. However, the headline is a good because they could have easily written a headline from the first paragraph about how the health care plan would reduce the deficit by $100 billion.

Fox-White House Talks Compromise, but GOP Claims Health Care Plan is Merely Camouflage

I gave Fox a break (I beat up on them a lot). When analyzing their headline, I did not use the headline that lead to the article which read "Health Compromise - or Camouflage?". In this headline there are three powerful verbs, "talks", "claims", and "is", arranged in a way that makes the White House seem shady and non-trasparent (who knows? They might be).

ARTICLE ARRANGEMENT

Article arrange is important because of the 56 percent of reader left, many of them stop reading after the first few sentences. I looked at what the article mention in the first sentence and then measured the distance between that and the first opposing point in the article.

CNN's First sentence- "President Obama unveiled a $950 billion proposal for reforming health care Monday, and promised that the plan is fully paid for and would even reduce the deficit in 10 years."

Anyone walking away from the article would assume that Obama's health care was a good idea. It's not until 7 long sentences later that the article mentions that some of the changes to the health care policy aren't free. In fact, the article reads like a big advertisement for Obama's health care plan, at one point it even referring to it as a "supermarket" where customers can "easily comparison shop". Let's see what Fox has to say...

Fox's First sentence- "The White House issued proposals Monday for Health care reform that have won kudos from several Democratic lawmakers, a sure sign, say Republicans, of how little GOP input is in the plan."

Fox's first sentence is a far more subdued than its headline. I believe Fox played a straighter hand than CNN in this respect because it put the comments from the White House in defense of it's actions earlier in the story (5 sentences instead of 7).

OVERALL TONE

CNN's piece reads like a big advertisement for Obama's health care plan at first, then it goes into detail (at length) about the specifics of the plan. by going into the specifics, however, you runoff any one than is afraid of numbers, leaving them with the impressions left from the first 8 sentences. Not that the health care plan is a bad idea, CNN just positions it as too good to be true. The difference between the first half of CNN's article and the second is striking. It goes from relating the health care plan to something simple, like shopping at a super market, then it jumps straight into heavy numbers and technical jargon. This sudden shift could be an attempt to try and keep the people that know very little about the mechanics of health care on Obama's side.

Fox's article, although a little skewed to the right, is more fair in it's assessment of it's particular situation because it shows opposing opinions earlier in the story. Fox still uses some inflamatory statements like "Indeed in it's efforts to appear bipartisan", but the article lays out several items that the White House has incorporated into the bill from the Republican agenda.

REMARKS

Although these articles are talking about different aspects of the health care debate, it is important to compare them because what the news determines on a particular day (Feb. 22), affects it's readers outlook on the situation. Fox talked about the White Houses unwillingness to compromise and CNN talked about the financial benefit of the plan. When two of their respective readers come together, they will be under totally different frames of mind.

CNN: The News in Color

This past week, I talked to Michele Thorton, CNN's Director of Multi-Cultural Sales, at a CNN industry immersion in New York City. She stated that 40 percent of CNN's viewers were minorities. As America's population becomes more diverse, CNN's audience will also. Does this demographic statistic affect the way the news is covered by CNN? Maybe...


CNN's viewership is 40 percent minority as of 2010. With the minority population in America expecting to outnumber the majority in 2050, it isn't a stretch to believe that CNN's viewership will reflect that in the coming years (They've already hit 40 percent). Michele elaborated on the issue while mixing the effect of advertising dollars into the equation. She said, CNN is bringing people the news, but at the end of the day, CNN is still about making money.


In 2009, CNN aired two documentaries by Soledad O'brien, "Black in America 2" and "Latino in America". Michele said that this was designed specifically with its viewers in mind. Michele said that CNN has even tossed around the idea of doing a "Gay in America"; it's all about ad revenue. So, let's do a bit of logic:

A) CNN's viewership will near 50 percent minority
B) Advertisers will only go with CNN if they feel CNN is reaching it customers
C) Minorities will only watch CNN if they feel CNN caters to their needs


If we believe that MSNBC is the liberal station while Fox News is the Conservative station, could CNN be the minority news station? All signs point to "yes" when you look at CNN's web site compared to MSNBC and Fox; CNN is the only one that offers its news in other languages. CNN even has a site in spanish, CNN en Espanol, directly targeting Hispanic Americans. The August 2007 issue of "Ebony" magazine the article "the big newscasts and the Black anchors who deliver them" said that CNN had the most black anchors-8; Fox had none. Along with the "____________ in America" series, CNN has also produced "Black Men in the Age of President Obama", a show targeted directly at Black audiences.

With these factors considered, can one assume CNN takes the minority side of every issue? I mean, their success depends on it. We can't jump to that conclusion because it is the "news"; every situation can't be slanted with a minority angle. But, in certain debates, like the immigration debate or inner city education, it would be hard to refute the effect of the minority viewership on CNN.

CNN's multi-cultural approach is worth noting because it might give us insight into the future of newscasting. CNN's viewship already represents what America will look like in 20 years. Multi-cultural programming and newscasters are a staple in CNN's positioning. Watching CNN is like looking through the lens of the future...

The State of the Union

The room was spinning... I couldn't breathe. My experiment had failed; there was no real way to get straight, down-the-center news. I thought that by flipping back and forth between Fox News and MSNBC I would get be a balance view of politics, but instead I got vertigo. While I was spinning, however, I did jot down a few notes...

"Equal Representation"
During ever discussion, both Fox and NBC would use two pundits, one a republican and the other a democrat. This sounds "Fair and Balanced" in principle, unless you are pitting Karl Rove against some no-name democratic strategist. MSNBC did the same using David Axlerod for their speech analysis opposite... [some random republican strategist].

"Pundits Say the Darnedest Things"
Did Chris Matthews really say he "Forgot Obama was black"? Come on Chris... you can't be that forgetful. Matthews also stated that his speech was "More seductive than the 'Rope-a-dope'", a boxing tactic used by Muhammad Ali. Somethings pundits say are hyperbola... obviously, these were two of them.

The Speech
During the State of the Union, I thought Obama handled the speech well; I would have messed myself under similar circumstances. He addressed everyone: the Supreme Court, Republicans, Democrats, etc. I liked the speech so I agreed with MSNBC's analysis (to a certain extent). They said he was "reasonable and commanding," with great poise. I flipped the channel to Fox only to here the exact opposite. "Obama had 'flat rhetoric' with smacks of 'Clintonianism'." At one point Fox pundits even called his speech tone deaf. that's a little much. How could two viewpoints of the same speech yield such different responses? Were they not watching the same speech?

Zero Sum Game
If we subscribe to the notion that Fox is conservative and MSNBC is liberal, we could have guessed their responses. Fox can't afford to give Obama an inch, nor can MSNBC give up a chance to praise him. What MSNBC calls witty, Fox calls smart-ass. We need a news station that we can trust to be as critical and probing... I flipped the channel.

Comedy Central: We have to laugh to keep from crying...
I'm going to be quite honest... when I'm not reading my news in the paper or online, I go to the Daily Show for my news. What's the difference between the Daily Show and the other news stations? They all cover real events. They all use sound bites. Every station has the same anchorman format, but the Daily Show has something special- Humor. Because they value humor over partisanship, the coverage "feels" more straight-forward. According to Jon Stewart, the State of the Union was good speech, a conclusion I came to myself. In his interview with Doris Kearns Goodwin they had a real political conversation. They said Obama has great words but it's about action. The room stopped spinning and I came to my senses.