May 1, 2005
"A Blog Rebellion Among Scientists and Engineers"
Blogs are invading all different types of spheres. However, what will be the effects of allowing scientists and engineers from the Los Alamos National Laboratory (which has a history of maintaining the highest level of federal secrecery) to blog? Especially, when they blog as anonymous, and therefore, they aren't held accountable for what they say.
I found the article "At Los Alamos, Blogging Their Discontent" very interesting. It paints a great picture of the power of blogs.
Posted by kbarajas at 11:07 AM | Comments (0)
April 25, 2005
The Minuteman Project Under Different Media Lights â€" From Villains to Heroes
If it hadn't been for the death of the Pope, the Minuteman Project that developed along the Arizona-Mexico border - along a 23-mile stretch between the border communities of Naco and Douglas - would have grasped the nation's attention. The Minuteman Project is composed of civilian volunteers, some of whom are armed, that arrived on April 1 to guard the U.S. border. They look for people that cross the border illegally, and upon spotting them, they alert the authorities. However, they aren't allowed to detain anyone. The Minuteman Project brought more attention to the hot, controversial topic of immigration. Every news organization viewed the Minuteman under a different light, and through the frame of their stories, they came to depict them from anything from villains to heroes.
In the Washington Times in an article entitled "'Heroes' poised for vigil on border", Jerry Seper depicts the Minuteman as "heroes" by stating Rep. Tom Tancredo, Colorado Republican, praise of the Minuteman â€" "I'm proud of every single one of you….You are not vigilantes. You are heroes." Moreover, by quoting the Minuteman organizer James T. Gilchrist -- "we will show our support for the men and women who put their lives on the line every day to protect our country despite a lack of manpower and resources," Seper further highlights the Minuteman's "courage" and "hero" qualities.
He then depicts the illegal immigrants as criminals by quoting Bay Buchanan, chairwoman of Team America and sister of former presidential candidate Pat Buchanan, - "You have failed us, and you have failed our children, by continuing to let criminals and drugs come across this border." By putting criminals and drugs in the same phrase, the article is in-directly presenting the illegal immigrants as participants in the drug-trafficking across the border. Futhermore, Seper portrays illegal immigrants as violent by stating that Mr. Gilchrist "expects that the volunteers are more likely to be the ones abused." The ACLU is also illustrated with negative characteristics by stating that it has a "witch-hunt mentality." Thus, the article presents a situation of the good guys versus the bad guys, where the Minuteman are the heroes and the illegal immigrants (and supporters) are the villains.
Seper paints a completely negative image of illegal immigrants. He fails to acknowledge the fact that the majority of immigrants come to this country escaping prosecution, poor circumstances, and are in search of a better life. Moreover, he fails to acknowledge the contribution of this group in the labor market. He doesn't present the argument in a fair and balanced manner, but rather, it is obvious that he is in support of the protest against "the lax immigration-enforcement policies of the administration and Congress." He illustrates President Bush as failing in his job by showing how Bay Buchanan's speech "received a standing ovation as she berated Mr. Bush for failing 'our country.'" Although Seper might not give the public all the facts, he sure does a great job in framing the story. Media scholar Charlotte Ryan stated, "every frame carries within it the notion of who made the problem and who gets to fix it." In his article, Seper clearly provides both of these notions â€" blaming the problem on the government and wanting the government to fix it.
In the Los Angeles Times, the Minuteman are portrayed on a more neutral base. In "Border-Watch Group to Stop Patrols," David Kelly presents the story of the Minuteman Project in a more balanced manner. Instead of labeling the Minuteman as "heroes," Kelly presents them for what they are a "grass-roots" project, which goal is to "attract media attention and embarrass the Bush administration into doing more to police the nation's borders." However, at times, Kelly presents the Minuteman as a nuisance, stating, "Using binoculars and two-way radios, participants who spotted migrants alerted the Border Patrol, whose leaders did not welcome the assistance. President Bush had called them vigilantes; human rights groups and some Arizona officials said they were racist and wrong-headed." In such manner, Kelly removes the Minuteman from the pedestal, which Seper placed them on.
Moreover, Kelly depicts the Minuteman's short stay and effort as "very superficial and clearly insincere." He quotes Ray Boran, the mayor of Douglas stating, "It doesn't surprise me that they ended it. As soon as the media packed up and left, they left as well. All they accomplished was being a hindrance to the Border Patrol and creating international hard feelings. Their biggest accomplishment was getting the media's attention. It was, as the Mexicans say, all song and no opera." Kelly thus illustrates them as "attention grabbers" and merely a hindrance to the Border Patrol that is trying to do its job. However, he qualifies this depiction by not excusing the Minetuman's actions as a mere "attention grabbing" demonstration; but rather, Kelly closes with the Minetuman's message â€" "we want our government to secure our borders." Therefore, Kelly presents a much better, unbiased storyline than Seper.
In a Spanish newspaper La Opinión, the issue of the Minuteman is presented under a more episodic frame in comparison to the Washington Times and the Los Angeles Times. The article entitled "Frente a los Minuteman" ("In Front of the Minuteman") begins with the presentation of Francisco Bamaca Pérez, who is waiting to cross the border and is presented with the knowledge of the Minuteman â€" "Francisco Bamaca Pérez didn't know anything about the Minuteman and when he found out about the operation of vigilance that was taking place between Douglas and Naco, he arched his shoulders and stuck out his lips in an expression of annoyance. He had been traveling for over a week from Xalapa and like his companions he showed signs of fatigue." Whereas the previous articles presented the story from the goals of the Minuteman, La Opinión presents the story from the side of those who the Minuteman is "hunting."
Since the newspaper is Spanish written, the audience is Hispanic, and thus, immigration is a sensitive issue for the majority. Therefore, the story presents the Mexican individuals waiting to cross the border as innocent, vulnerable individuals. The journalist writes "La mayorÃa habÃa invertido hasta lo que ya no tenÃa para ese viaje" ["The majority had invested everything that they had in this trip"], and thus the article portrays these individuals as poor beings merely trying to cross the border in search of a better life. The article goes on to describe what the Minuteman are in a very factual manner and quotes Pérez stating, "Con minute o sin minute venimos a intentarlo. No hay más" ["With minute or without minute, we have just come to attempt it. There's no other option"]. The article presents the Minuteman Project as futile, for Minuteman aren't necessarily going to stop the number of people from attempting to cross the border. Immigrants don't have anything to loose in their poverty stricken homelands.
The article demonstrates a balance by stating that while there are those who manifest their opposition to illegal immigration, there are many others that see illegal immigration as inevitable and as very beneficial for the economy of the U.S. Moreover, the article goes on to state that the majority of immigrants that cross the border do the jobs that many of the locals don't want to do, and that without them, the economy would be greatly affected. The article quotes an American stating, "We would have to see how much salads would cost if there weren't any undocumented immigrants that worked in agriculture for less than the minimum salary and without complains." By quoting an American citizen, the article gives the notion that not all Americans are opposed to the illegal immigrants like the Minuteman, for they see the benefits that such immigration brings to the U.S. economy.
The controversial issue of illegal immigration holds supporters on both sides. Depending on who is writing the story, the illegal immigrants are portrayed as parasites or as hard-working individuals in mere search for a better life. Therefore, the framing of the story has a great impact on the country's attitudes toward illegal immigration. However, the majority of Americans are widely misinformed of the role that immigration plays in the economy and instead use immigrants are scapegoats for the countries problems. Ideally the role of the news media would be to present the facts; however, journalists are human, and thus the facts tend to be construed and shaped in a manner that will advance their agenda.
Posted by kbarajas at 12:30 PM | Comments (0)
April 17, 2005
A Picture is Worth a Thousand Words
I found this website "World Picture News" quite interesting. Its motto is "Delivering the world to the world," and claims that it has clients all over the world that purchase their images for magazine and newspapers 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. The interesting part lies in that you can click on the pictures and they have captions that describe the image that is shown. In this manner, you are able to get a quick background on what is currently going on and look at numerous pictures that come with the description, and we all know that a picture is worth a thousand words.
Posted by kbarajas at 4:03 PM | Comments (1)
Establishing a Peer Connection
Medill journalism graduate students are part of a new way of reporting news. For an academic quarter, they are sent to Washington, D.C. to cover the politics of Capitol Hill. They are either paired up with one of 19 newspapers, nine television stations, or a handful of radio stations and Web news sources across the country. Thus, they work on three to five stories weekly for smaller news sources like Durham (N.C.) Herald-Sun, the York (Pa.) Daily Record, WDAY-TV in Fargo, N.D., and WCAX-TV in Burlington, Vt.
In this manner, they learn first hand what they wouldn't have learned in the classroom. By working for small news outlets, the journalism students learn what kind of constituents the local media stations are aiming at, and thus, they can look for stories that pertain to what the audience wants to know.
Moreover, as young journalism students, they are able to appeal to other young people. For a generation, like Generation Y, that is so apathetic about politics and voting, hearing the news from students like them can have great benefits. Executive director of the Pew Center for Civic Journalism stated, ""I think that young people covering the campaign for other young people was a great way to break out of the box."
Posted by kbarajas at 3:49 PM | Comments (1)
April 12, 2005
Safety Net for American Journalism In Peril
As skepticim of the media grows, people are beginging to worry that the safety net for American journalism - "public approval of the role of the free press"- is in peril. "Public approval is our life-support system, and it is now at risk." Read A Slap in the Face
Posted by kbarajas at 10:02 AM | Comments (0)
April 10, 2005
Interview with Janice Johnston, GMA Supervising Producer
Janice Johnston is supervising producer for Good Morning America (GMA). She has been working in GMA for the past six years. Before coming to GMA, she worked as a corporate attorney. She graduated from Princeton University, in which she majored in the Woodrow Wilson School and wrote her thesis on "The Brazilian Television Industry: Military Order and Television Progress."
I began my interview with some questions pertaining to Good Morning America. When I asked about GMA's niche, she said that there wasn't a particular group, but rather, the national show was aimed at a general morning audience that cross cuts racial and economic lines. However, she then added that in the first hour, GMA appeals more to a male audience and as the show progresses, it switches to a women audience. I then asked her if GMA gave the people more what they wanted or what they needed. She stated, "I think both. But if I have to choose, I would say [that GMA gives them] what they want in the sense that if they are watching it, it has to be what they want. The show is a consumer product; the public has to be interested in it." She stated that most broadcast, like news magazine (i.e. 20/20), all have a balance….everything is covered. Ms. Johnston felt that a bigger question for news organization was the extent of covering world news vs. national news. She stated, "Its American culture to be more focus on domestic issues, and the time devoted to international news is a fraction of the time devoted to national news." However, she did mention that post 9-11, Americans have been forced to acknowledge the world more than before.
We then switched our conversation to the discussion about the future of news. The following transcription entails the main points of our discussion:
Karen: "What is your main source of news?"
Ms. Johnston: "Because of my job, I can never get away from news. It's always all around me, but I do get the paper delivered to my house and also read news magazines."
[Note: She was very surprised when I told her that the majority of the people that I know get their news from the internet, since she doesn't rely on the internet for news.]
Karen: "Have you heard of the blogosphere? What role do you think it plays in making people aware of the news?"
Ms. Johnston: "Yes. The question assumes that blogs are news, which I don't think they are. A blog is more like someone's personal gossip page, not news at all. It is not news, but rather it's more of an opinion page."
[She stated that GMA is aware of blogs, for it is part of their research to find out varying public opinions and thus to see what the blogs are saying.]
Karen: "The State of Journalism in 2005 stated that people who distrust the news media the most are actually the biggest consumers of it. How do you feel this growing skepticism among audiences will come to affect the news consumption?"
Ms. Johnston: "Because of this current administration, a very skeptical, fragmented society has emerged, and a lot of political agendas are being played out in the news. There are certain organizations that appeal to define consumer groups, for example FOX news. If growing skepticism continues, more news sources will develop to serve the demands of the public. It is not our purpose as journalists to be opinion pages. [However], it is true that nothing is neutral… we are human; taking complete bias out of news isn't possible. But we have to more balance. A fragmented society will lead people to go to certain news sources that appeal to their views."
Karen: "Do you think that the growing skepticism will eventually face out traditional news media? And if so, what would come to replace it?"
Ms. Johnston: "No… it will be whether skepticism brings about new channels to concentrate on different audiences. Looking back thirty year, there was no CNN news, no FOX news. More channels create different specialties to appeal to different people. If there is more fragmentation, then there will be more specialization."
Karen: "What do you think is an area or aspect of current news media that is need of reform?"
Ms. Johnston: "Many organizations strive for diversity…. for all news organization diversity is something that could be improved. Diversity of opinion covered and geographic area covered.
As a group, we don't cover all of America as well as we should. We don't focus as much on the whole country as we should. Mississippi might get a story once a year or might not, yet New York will get many stories. You have to weigh the factors because for something that you choose to cover, you have to not cover something else."
Posted by kbarajas at 9:51 PM | Comments (0)
The Impact of the Way You Count
I found this article "Our Rating, Ourselves" very interesting. It offers some insight on the impact of measuring viewership.
Posted by kbarajas at 11:55 AM | Comments (1)
April 3, 2005
Taking A Step Backwards With Disinformation
In an article entitled "Pentagon Weighs Use of Deception in a Broad Arena - Value of Disinformation" in the New York Times, Thom Shanker and Eric Schimitt talk about the debate going on in the Pentagon about "how far it can and should go in managing or manipulation information to influence opinion abroad." This isn't the first time that the Pentagon faces such a dilemma. In 2001, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld closed the Pentagon's Office of Strategic Influence due to intense criticism. This Office of Strategic Influence was an "operation to provide news items, possibly including false ones, to foreign journalists in an effort of influence overseas opinion." Many realized the consequences that such deception could bring, and thus, the public pressured Defense Secretary Rumsfeld to shut it down.
So why is the Pentagon wanting to resurrect a system like the short-lived Office of Strategic Influence?
The article in NYT stated, "Critics of the proposals say such deceptive missions could shatter the Pentagon's credibility, leaving the American public and a world audience skeptical of anything the Defense Department and military say â€" a repeat of the credibility gap that roiled America during Vietnam War." Indeed, the Iraq War has being parallel to the Vietnam War in many elements. Adding this element of distortion of information will make the public grow even more skeptical of the government that it already is. As Geoffrey R. Stone stated in Perilous Times, "The Bush administration may have seriously misled the American people in order to heighten the public's insecurity and build support for escalating the war… George Bush exaggerated the evidence that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction in order to justify the invasion of Iraq" (555). The public was faced with lies about the hidden weapons of mass destruction, and further lies will surely dismantle the Pentagon's credibility.
By creating false documents, news stories, and Web sites in Arabic countries, the Pentagon will not be able to prevent the deception from spilling out to the American people. Certain tactics are necessary in war. Obviously the military can't tell the American people every step it will take because there are enemies that can get hold of such information. Thus, some degree of secrecy and some degree of deception are necessary in the interest of national security. However, as Geoffrey R. Stone states, "Accountability is essential to good government. Officials who can mask their decisions behind a screen of self-invoked secrecy are sure to abuse their authority…Officials who know they will have to explain and defend their actions before an independent branch of government are more likely to tread carefully when the pressures of the moment make the temptation to cut corners difficult to resist" (546).
The Pentagon feels threatened by the falsehoods that are being spread over mass media outlets like Al Jazeera, as well as, by mosques and religious schools that preach anti-American principles. However, by retaliating with falsehoods, the Pentagon will not push democratic ideals forward, but rather it will take a step backwards. Maybe it's my idealism, but I feel that the best way to combat lies is with the truth. If the truth isn't sufficient, then maybe the government should reconsider its actions. Battling falsehoods with falsehoods will only hurt everyone as Gandhi once said, "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind."
Posted by kbarajas at 3:05 PM | Comments (1)
March 28, 2005
Can Limits Be Placed?
How successful is the F.C.C. going to be in curtailing violence (among other things label as indecent) in the media when this is what appeals to a large majority of the audience?
Read "Under New Chief, F.C.C. Considers Widening Its Reach"
Posted by kbarajas at 11:30 AM | Comments (0)
March 26, 2005
"Squeezing the News out of the News Business"
I found the statistics quoted in this article quite interesting. They give you a good feel for how the news business is getting its news:
Read: All the News That's Fed
Posted by kbarajas at 12:07 PM | Comments (1)
March 18, 2005
Taking a Piece of the Same Pie
The blogosphere seems to be increasing more and more in popularity as many individuals and organization begin to creat their own blogs... Read Yahoo Steps Into the Blogosphere
Posted by kbarajas at 3:46 PM | Comments (0)
March 6, 2005
FOX vs. CNBC?
As the market of business news decreases, Fox News prepares itself to contend against CNBC. Who will be the winner? This will be interesting to watch.
Read Fox vs. CNBC? Now That Would Be a Grudge Match
Posted by kbarajas at 11:42 AM | Comments (0)
February 21, 2005
Good Morning America
In January 1975, ABC launched "AM America," which eventually morphed into "Good Morning America." Before this, ABC-TV stations filled their 7am-9am time slot with local programming. Good Morning America (GMA) is a two-hour, live news program hosted by Charles Gibson and Diane Sawyer. It began with airing five days a week, but now airs seven days a week. Segments involve consumer information, health issues, film reviews, and celebrity interviews.
The Today show faced little competition until ABC launched Good Morning America in November 1975. GMA was similar to the Today show in that it used a blend of news, interviews and featured articles. The set of GMA was more like a living room rather than a newsroom. This gave the show a more personal feeling, like inviting friends over for coffee and conversation. David Hartman was the first host of GMA, with Nancy Dussault as his co-host. Nancy didn't stay long and was replaced by Sandy Hill in 1977. Although GMA started off slowly in the ratings, through out the last half of the seventies it climbed steadily; and in 1979, GMA unseated NBC's Today Show as the top-rated morning show.
In the eighties, the Today show was going through numerous changes and thus ran consistently second to GMA in the ratings. Sandy Hill left GMA in the summer of 1980, and was replaced by Joan Lunden. The David Hartman/ Joan Lunden team stayed together until 1987, when David Hartman decided to leave and was replaced by Charlie Gibson. However, the Charlie Gibson/ Joan Lunden team proved to be an extremely successful partnership for ABC. For the most part, GMA stayed at the top of the early morning ratings throughout most of the eighties.
Despite the efforts of CBS, the competition through out the nineties remained between NBC's Today show and ABC's Good Morning America. For the first half of the nineties, GMA stayed in first place for early morning shows, for the Charlie Gibson/Joan Lunden team was hard to beat. When Joan Lunden was replaced by Lisa McRee in 1997, the program's ratings dropped. They further dropped when Kevin Newman replaced Charlie Gibson in 1998. ABC tried to boost ratings by bringing Charlie back and paring him up with Diane Sawyer. The team was supposed to be a temporary arrangement but due to their success, ABC was in no hurry to replace them. In addition to the new anchor team of Gibson and Sawyer, the show presented a reworked set with softer, warmer tones of yellow and gold, replacing the icier blues that previously made up the set. Along with this new coloring of the set, new graphics and music also debuted.
Since debuting together as an anchor team in Jan. 18, 1999, Diane Sawyer and Charles Gibson have given GMA a jolt in the ratings. Day-one sampling of the new anchor duo was impressive for the show's ratings shot up 34% over its fourth-quarter average. The first full week of the Charlie and Diane show produced a 25% gain over the fourth-quarter average, up about 600,000 viewers, with 3.6/15. However, Today on NBC remained well ahead of the pack, averaging about 2 million more weekly viewers than GMA and 3 million more viewers than CBS's This Morning.
On Sept. 13, 1999, Diane Sawyer and Charles Gibson began broadcasting from a new studio in Time Square. Since the debut of the Sawyer/Gibson team, GMA increased 15% in both ratings and total viewers; however, it continues to fall behind Today show. According to Nielsen ratings for the week of August 14-20, GMA attracted an average audience of 3.7 millions viewers, compared with Today's 5.4 million. But the biggest problem in 2000 was the lack of any post-Sawyer plan, since Sawyer was supposed to be a temporary placement. Overall, in 2000, ABC was ahead of CBS in all news categories, morning, evening and public affairs. But still had its work cut out to catch first-place NBC.
In 2001, GMA began to see its ratings drop, particularly in the key ad-friendly demos of women 25-54 and women 18-49. GMA began to face criticism as critiques noted that the real problem with the show was that Gibson and Sawyer weren't perky enough. Nonetheless, GMA's viewers continued to grow and in Feb. 2003, GMA was separated by NBC's Today by only 540,000 viewers, the closest the two arch rivals have been since 1996. GMA emerged from February averaging 5.43 million viewers, which is the total that it had reached during that decade. In 2003, GMA took in $357 million, compared to Today's $497 million. Thus, the $140 million gap shows that GMA still has a lot of catching up to do.
Through 2003, ABC network remained in last place compared to all the major nets. Many said that it was largely due to the many individuals that are in charge and thus results in a sort of "corporate constipation." Josef Adalin in Variety stated, "While Leslie Moonves rules CBS with an iron fist and Jeff Zucker is largely left alone to run NBC, the Alphabet is a network run by committee everyone from Eisner and Disney chief operating officer Bob Iger to ABC TV prexy Alex Wallau, entertainment TV group chief Lloyd Bran and entertainment prexy Susan Lyne." However, ABC continues to boast the strongest owned-and-operated TV station group in the country; and the net's news operation is a solid number two with both World News Tonight and Good Morning America.
`By July 2004, Today's lead over GMA had shrunk drastically. A year ago, Today was drawing 43% more 25-54 viewers than its ABC rival. During this year's second quarter that lead shrank to 30%, and, for the month of June alone dropped to about 24%. GMA is gaining older viewers. Moreover, unlike Today, GMA relies less on anchors Diane Sawyer and Charlie Gibson and more on feature pieces by its correspondents.
According to Yahoo! News as of Jan. 21, 2005, GMA is having a closer race with Today. Today averaged 5.9 million viewers for the week, compared with 5.7 million for GMA, the closest the two programs have been since 1996. In advertising revenues, according to Nielsen Monitor-Plus ad-tracking data through October 2004, Today captures about 55% of the ad dollars spent on morning news, while GMA gets approximately 33% of that revenue and CBS about 15%. Today's high percentage is partly due to the fact that it runs three hours while its rivals run only two hours. The crowd that gathers outside of GMA is an estimated 300 people a day compared to the Today show's crowd of 400 people a day.
Posted by kbarajas at 12:45 AM | Comments (0)
February 17, 2005
Freedom of the Press - Many Students Call For A Limit
The First Amendment provides the media with the freedom to publish/broadcast their stories without government restriction. It is one of our most precious freedoms. However, the misinterpretation of the facts has led many individuals to feel that the media can no longer give them the real facts and thus should be censored.
I was shocked as I read an article in USA Today that reports that one in three students say the press should be restricted and should require the approval of the government. Are our public schools producing democratic citizens?
Posted by kbarajas at 9:23 PM | Comments (0)
February 13, 2005
We have read of how in the U.S. the media tends to be market driven. In China, it seems as it a state-run media is providing more objectivity as it critiques North Korea, China's neighbor and sometime ally.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/13/international/asia/13korea.html?th
Chinese News Media Critical of North Korea
By KEITH BRADSHER and JAMES BROOKE
New York Times
Published: February 13, 2005
EIJING, Sunday, Feb. 13 - China on Sunday publicly called for the Korean peninsula to be free of nuclear weapons and urged North Korea to return to regional talks regarding its nuclear program. State-run Chinese media and censored Internet chat rooms were uncommonly critical of Pyongyang for having announced Thursday that it had manufactured nuclear weapons.
Advertisement
The official New China News Agency reported Sunday morning that Foreign Minister Li Zhaoxing of China had spoken by phone on Saturday night with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. Mr. Li called for the regional negotiations to resume as soon as possible and for the "denuclearization" of the peninsula, the agency said.
The Chinese Foreign Ministry had made similar points late Thursday night but at a much more junior level, with the statement issued in the name of Kong Quan, the chief spokesman. Bush administration officials have made little secret of their hope of recruiting China's help to put pressure on North Korea.
China has more influence with North Korea than any other country does, providing it with much of its fuel, food and other supplies - although even Chinese influence has proved limited at times.
The broad criticism by state-run media is important because the Chinese government has tended to take a protective position, at least in public, toward North Korea, its neighbor and sometime ally.
National television news on state-run CCTV gave heavy coverage on Saturday to international condemnation of North Korea and demands that it return to regional talks about its nuclear program. Little effort was made to explain North Korea's position - that it needs a nuclear deterrent to prevent the United States from attacking someday.
"Usually the CCTV reports will be more balanced, or even take a more preferential stand" in favor of North Korea, said Jin Canrong, the associate dean of the School of International Studies at People's University.
Shi Yinhong, a professor of international relations at People's University, said, "The Chinese government is really angry in their hearts about the declaration of North Korea, so they take a permissive attitude toward the media," allowing greater criticism of North Korea.
Two large sister newspapers, The Beijing News and Southern Metropolitan Daily in Guangzhou, ran a scathing commentary on Saturday by Dongfang Shuo, whom the two newspapers identified simply as a Beijing scholar. Dongfang Shuo is a pen name sometimes used for articles that reflect an evolving or unofficial view among Chinese experts on North Korea.
North Korea's statement on Thursday "can only make the North Korean nuclear issue more complicated and can't have a good result," the commentary said. "Because North Korea always engages in these kinds of marginal tactics, no country in the world would trust that North Korea is now playing a true game."
The commentary suggested that North Korea was mainly trying to attract international attention, as part of an effort to attract foreign aid.
Government censors have tended to delete criticisms of North Korea from Chinese Internet sites in the past. But hundreds of such postings could easily be found on Saturday on Sina.com, a popular news site.
The postings did not question that some countries might need nuclear weapons - China has them - but suggested that North Korea should not be a nuclear power.
"A kitchen knife is used to cut food, but it can't be held by children and crazy people," one posting said. "This is why North Korea can't be allowed to hold nuclear weapons."
To be sure, a similar number of postings defended North Korea, where many Chinese served during the Korean War, and government propaganda has often defended it since then. But postings favorable to North Korea had far outnumbered critical postings in the past. "The enemy of your enemy is your friend," one said. "Nobody likes North Korea, but we should support everyone who opposes the United States."
Television, newspaper and news agency reports here were quite mild in the first hours after North Korea issued its statement on Thursday afternoon. They focused initially only on North Korea's decision to pull out of the regional talks, and said little about the country's statement that it had manufactured nuclear weapons.
The low-key initial response of Chinese media and the Foreign Ministry to Pyongyang's announcement shows that the North Korean statement "was a surprise to China," said Chu Shulong, a foreign policy expert at Qinghua University.
But the Chinese news media have stopped short of suggesting a popular idea among some of North Korea's harshest critics in the Bush administration: trying to change North Korea's government by sending in radios, or other steps to help the country's residents realize how poor and isolated they are.
That idea drew support in Japan on Saturday from Robyn Lim, a Nanzan University professor influential in defense policy circles, who wrote in an essay: "The crisis will be resolved either by war or by regime change. Let's try for regime change."
In South Korea, where the liberal government of President Roh Moo Hyun has pursued an engagement policy of aid and investment with North Korea, conservative newspapers urged him Saturday to take a hard line on the North's nuclear weapons program.
Keith Bradsher reported from Beijing for this article, and James Brooke from Tokyo.
Posted by kbarajas at 12:22 PM | Comments (0)
February 7, 2005
Just A Click Away
In the United States, the majority of individuals get their news from television. However, more and more people are turning to the internet as a way to get their news. With a click of your mouse, you are able to have access to newspapers from The New York Times to the Wall Street Journal, as well as news networks like CNN. Instead of shuffling through the numerous pages in newspapers or waiting to hear a certain story in the TV news, you can just perform a search on the topic that you would like to be informed about.
The way in which I get the news has changed from high school to now. When I lived at home, my main source was Univision (a Spanish network). My family doesn't speak English so when the television was turned on, it was always on a Spanish channel. The news basically dealt with what was happening in Latin America or else what was happening to Hispanics in the United States, such as immigration issues. The news was aimed at Spanish speaking workers, and thus framed its storylines on issues that would be of concern to that particular audience.
However, the way in which I get my news now is through a daily e-mail from The New York Times with the day's headlines. I read through the headlines and if any one is of particular interest to me I click on it and further read about the subject. I also log onto CNN on-line to see what they list as their main headlines. Then I go on to click on the topics that appeal to me the most, such as "Education," "Health," and "Law." The audience that The New York Times and CNN on-line aim at is different from the audience that Univision aims at, as can be seen from that wide array of topics covered by the former. Whereas at home, I didn't even have internet access, the internet in college has now become my companion, and therefore, it has changed the way I go about doing things.
Almost everyone I talk to on campus gets their news through the internet. This is probably due to the fact that many don't have a television in their dorms nor close access to a kiosk in which to purchase a newspaper. Our morning routines are basically the same: get out of bed, head to the computer, check e-mail, and head to a source of news on-line. Everyone has their favorite links, but the reason that I go to The New York Times and CNN on-line is because I feel that they hold the most credibility and come closest to giving me the news that I'm interested in hearing. They offer a combination of "hard news" as well as "soft news," and as a consumer, I feel that they offer me the best product. I read the news and don't feel as if I'm particularly being swayed in one direction or another, but rather I'm just given the facts and I'm left to decide which way I want to lean towards.
Posted by kbarajas at 1:17 AM | Comments (2)