Jimmy Carter on April 17, 2008. Who could reject that face? (Photo courtesy of Fox News.)Once you've recovered from the aneurysm accompanying all that alliteration in my headline, take a gander at these two takes on pretty much the same story. For those of you too lazy to click the links, here's a quick summary: Jimmy Carter met with Hamas leaders in Syria to discuss peace with Israel. The leaders said they'd respect Israel as a neighbor. Jimmy Carter expressed some frustration with the U.S. and Israel's refusals to speak to the leaders themselves to attempt at rectifying the ongoing conflicts in the region.
With that said, I'm going to dissect their headlines and closing graphs specifically to compare and contrast, because even Dubya himself can find pretty clear differences in these, and he can't even adequately chew pretzels. The headlines and closing paragraphs are what, respectively, catch the readers' attention and help them draw conclusions on what they just absorbed.
I'll begin with The Daily Mail. Their headline reads "Hamas would let Israel 'live as a neighbour next door in peace', says former U.S. President Jimmy Carter." The Daily Mail closes their article with a non-descript telling of Israeli President Shimon Peres's scolding of Carter for meeting with Hamas officials.
Fox News's headline reads: "Hamas Leader Vows Not to Recognize Israel After Carter Trumpets Terror Group's Willingness to Be Good 'Neighbor'." Fox ends their piece with Carter's expressing disappointment over Hamas' rejection of a proposed truce. Fox ends on a note of failure on behalf of Carter, who said he "thinks they're wrong."
The Daily Mail doesn't go out of their way to point out that Hamas is a militant group in their headline; if their readers didn't know what Hamas was before, they have to look farther down into the story to find out. For all they know, it could be an Islamic bridge club. Fox, however, leaves little doubt as to how they view Hamas, citing them as a terrorist organization in the headline--before readers can interpret for themselves just what the group stands for.
In addition, The Daily Mail refers to Jimmy Carter as a former U.S. president, likely to cater to their U.K. audience (because really, how many of you can name former U.K. prime ministers off the top of your head?) and uses the verb "says;" Fox simply calls him Carter (while most of us assume better, how do we know he doesn't mean Shawn Corey Carter, or perhaps the Samuel L. Jackson Coach of the same surname?) and claims that he "trumpeted" the group. Fox also uses strategically placed quotation marks soley around "Neighbor," while The Daily Mail encloses more of the direct quotation within the marks. It seems that The Daily Mail is taking the statement at face value and somewhat more objectively--at least on the surface--than Fox News, because encapsulating a single term indicates a bit of skepticism, or at least some irony, in said term.
For example: Fox News is fair and balanced.
That reads quite differently from what I actually feel, which is: Fox News is "fair" and "balanced." Insert cough.
*By Jessica Sager, who thinks you should take a peek at her music blog.
With that said, I'm going to dissect their headlines and closing graphs specifically to compare and contrast, because even Dubya himself can find pretty clear differences in these, and he can't even adequately chew pretzels. The headlines and closing paragraphs are what, respectively, catch the readers' attention and help them draw conclusions on what they just absorbed.
I'll begin with The Daily Mail. Their headline reads "Hamas would let Israel 'live as a neighbour next door in peace', says former U.S. President Jimmy Carter." The Daily Mail closes their article with a non-descript telling of Israeli President Shimon Peres's scolding of Carter for meeting with Hamas officials.
Fox News's headline reads: "Hamas Leader Vows Not to Recognize Israel After Carter Trumpets Terror Group's Willingness to Be Good 'Neighbor'." Fox ends their piece with Carter's expressing disappointment over Hamas' rejection of a proposed truce. Fox ends on a note of failure on behalf of Carter, who said he "thinks they're wrong."
The Daily Mail doesn't go out of their way to point out that Hamas is a militant group in their headline; if their readers didn't know what Hamas was before, they have to look farther down into the story to find out. For all they know, it could be an Islamic bridge club. Fox, however, leaves little doubt as to how they view Hamas, citing them as a terrorist organization in the headline--before readers can interpret for themselves just what the group stands for.
In addition, The Daily Mail refers to Jimmy Carter as a former U.S. president, likely to cater to their U.K. audience (because really, how many of you can name former U.K. prime ministers off the top of your head?) and uses the verb "says;" Fox simply calls him Carter (while most of us assume better, how do we know he doesn't mean Shawn Corey Carter, or perhaps the Samuel L. Jackson Coach of the same surname?) and claims that he "trumpeted" the group. Fox also uses strategically placed quotation marks soley around "Neighbor," while The Daily Mail encloses more of the direct quotation within the marks. It seems that The Daily Mail is taking the statement at face value and somewhat more objectively--at least on the surface--than Fox News, because encapsulating a single term indicates a bit of skepticism, or at least some irony, in said term.
For example: Fox News is fair and balanced.
That reads quite differently from what I actually feel, which is: Fox News is "fair" and "balanced." Insert cough.
*By Jessica Sager, who thinks you should take a peek at her music blog.
No comments:
Post a Comment