The Greek Debt Crisis

How Mass Media Sees Greece

Currently, Greece is in debt due to max tax evasion which limited the revenue for the Grecian government. As Greece’s government ran out of money, it decided to borrow billions, causing it go into further debt. Once the situation became worse, Prime Minister Papandreou called for a referendum in order to resolve whether the country should take the deal offered by the European Union. Given this deal, Greece struggles to decide if wants to enter the agreement (along with the repercussions) or face certain consequences.

“The Greek Crisis” via the National Public Radio

National Public Radio (NPR), a United States radio network, recently covered this emerging story on the Grecian crisis. It is interesting to note that since the stories are relayed through an audio format, voice intonations and fluctuations play a large role in the presentation of the information. The reporters emphasize words like, “shocking,” “dwindled,” “snap,” and “enormous,” to make their point. As a result, the listeners are subject to the reporters’ innate opinions leaking out through their voices, an issue which is irrelevant when stories are read. It can also be observed that heavily opinionated statements are presented as facts such as: “[Papandreou] has lost an enormous amount of credibility” or, “[Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi] is the wealthiest and most powerful man in Italy and he has a strong patronage power and he's likely to spend the next few days wooing errant deputies back to his party.” This again adds to the point: the reporters are essentially imposing their own opinions onto the public.
Moreover, as was described in the novel by Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky, the propaganda model proposed in its third step that: the media relied on the information provided by government, business, and experts. “Newsworkers are predisposed to treat bureaucratic accounts as factual because news personnel participate in upholding a normative order of authorized knowers in the society. Reporters operate with the attitude that officials ought to know what it is their job to know.... In particular, a newsworker will recognize an official's claim to knowledge not merely as a claim, but as a credible, competent piece of knowledge.” To put this in a concise manner, officials provide the facts, and reports relay them. This is directly supported by an second article on NPR, again focusing on the Greek bailout/referendum, represented through a literary format, not audio. However in this case, the article is composed of material from various outside media sources: The Guardian, AP, Reuters, The Dow Jones Newswire. NPR likely had to buy the rights to these stories. Directly quoting each of these media outlets, NPR composes its own report on the situation in Greece.

The BBC on “Trouble in the Eurozone”

We turn next to a news source straight from Europe: the BBC News. The British Broadcasting company, though well-known for its news reporting, is in the minority when it comes to news media sources in England. Unlike American, the British still rely heavily on newspaper for their daily headline. The three biggest papers in the United States-The Wall Street Journal, New York Times, and USA Today- together have 2 million readers, while Britain’s The Sun alone holds 3 million. Though the BBC News can hardly be called a cash cow like its printed counterpart, the station holds greater accuracy…or at least less hype. So how did their coverage of the Greek Crisis unfold? First and foremost, the reports are very cut and dry. In a certain news segment entitled “Eurozone in Trouble”, the BBC attempts to cohesively explain the Greek Crisis from its origins in the late 1990s to current. The piece, along with a corresponding timeline, also has a glossary of economic terms so even lay people could comprehend the complex terminology. In another article entitled “Government Talks to Go on Fourth Day,” the BBC again recaps the Greek happenings as well as the political nature of the problem. However, when describing both the ongoing meetings between various global leaders and the current Greek president, Lucas Papademos, they describe both the actions and reactions of the leaders in great details. The BBC’s correspondent is asked for his opinion on the effects of such dealings on the British population (which he states in a very indifferent fashion) but never is this opinion reiterated by the newscast as truth. This opinion, again, is not set against opinions of other reporters or ‘analysts.’ Instead, the BBC looks to have a controlled bipartisan reporting style.
In large part, the BBC’s want for such a blasé style of news can be accredited to its main sponsor: the British government. The BBC directly reflects the British government. It has a certain level of integrity to uphold. Still, it doesn’t surprise me that their prospect for the British population in the fallout of the Greek crisis is very optimistic. In the “Eurozone in Trouble” article sited before, the BBC postulates that Britain’s fiscal stability will hardly be affected at all. The reporter does mention a tangential issue that may arise (that Ireland, one of Britain’s main debtors will run into issues) but a total of one sentence in a report spanning pages is devoted to this problem. It seems as if the BBC (or the British government), in an efforts to calm public distress over the Greek Crisis, may be willing to compromise the integrity of their news in the face of a ‘national fear’ developing. So the Greek Crisis becomes a crisis for the rest of the world.
The BBC, like many news sources, is swayed by a higher power. In the BBC’s case, the power belongs to the government. This does not detract from the validity of Chomsky’s opinion that the media is highly controlled and tailored; though the BBC may not rely heavily on advertisements for revenue, they are still pushed to please the audience they cater to, to calm the masses of British that worry over the economy in the midst of a Eurozone Crisis. True, the BBC does try to maintain a high level of factual basis in their reports. However, it is difficult to ignore their financial and political motives.

The Greek Economy through the Associated Press

Through following The Associated Press’ reporting on the Greek economic crisis, I found out that they gathered information for their articles by having actual reporters in Athens, so that they would receive their stories first hand, rather than through other media outlets. The reporting done by The Associated Press seems to be rather impartial and unbiased which agrees with their mission, which is to “be the essential global news network, providing distinctive news services of the highest quality, reliability, and objectivity with reports that are accurate, balanced and informed.” I appreciate how the writers on the staff of the AP try to remain objective in their reporting, because it let’s the readers make up their own opinions on the matters being discussed, however I think there is something to be said about the different media outlets that are more opinion based, because it shows how free they are of the pressure and censorship that can sometimes be placed on larger news sources by the companies that own and fund them as Herman and Chomsky discuss in Manufacturing consent: a propaganda model. The articles that I read were very facts based directly presenting things that were said or done. According to The Associated Press’ website it “considers itself to be the backbone of the world’s information system, serving thousands of daily newspaper, radio, television, and online customers with coverage in text, photos, graphics, audio and video.” This shows how The AP is a major news media outlet that many other news sources use in order to write their own stories. The Associated Press is one of the most trusted sources for news, which is why other news sources can utilize the information that they provide.

Chomsky and Media Sources

As Edward Herman mentioned in his reflection on the propaganda model, “Government and large non-media business firms are best positioned (and sufficiently wealthy) to be able to pressure the media with threats of withdrawal of advertising or TV licenses, libel suits, and other direct and indirect modes of attack.” This is why sites such as Twitter and Blogger have become so popular. They are not required to abide by a certain ‘code of conduct’ where the editors and posters have to be approved by a higher authority, which is usually governed by high stake pressures such as TV licenses and libel suits. But the problem that arises here is that these public sites are not deemed as ‘credible sources’ because they aren’t edited and approved by a higher power.
Few news media sources are thought of to be impartial in their presenting of information, however The Associated Press has made it part of their mission to remain objective in their writing, leaving them to be one of the few sources that present news in a mostly unbiased perspective.
As described by Herman, the propaganda model suggests that the mainstream media, “commonly frame news and allow debate only within the parameters of elite interests.” Yet this provides an interesting point in relation to the news source National Public Radio. NPR news is commonly criticized to be geared towards one political party over another. Research presented by the Pew Project for Excellence in Journalism, a non-partisan organization that uses data to evaluate media performance, found that more Democrats than Republicans find NPR's stories believable. However, an article on NPR itself declares that the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the quasi-governmental agency that provides $430 million to public broadcasting, may cut NPR’s funding if it continues to be biased more towards a certain political party. This may greatly influence future news stories presented by NPR.
When looking at the BBC in comparison to National Public Radio, it represents a minor source of news within the UK, where television news is less used than newspapers. The BBC, unlike both the Associated Press and NPR, receives many grants and funds directly from the government. Though it may seem like the BBC acts in part as an extension of the British government to coax any anxiety surrounding the Greek Crisis, it acts in a very similar fashion the AP and NPR. All three sources look to their sponsors for guidance. In NPR’s case, sponsorship in large part comes directly from listeners. The Associated Press sells their reports to other stations that are not willing to invest in correspondence; for them, the stories must be catchy, must hook the attention of a society looking for a good story.
The AP and NPR find little reason to advertise on their website. They maintain their funding through self sponsored advertisements where they ask followers to buy their merchandise. For example, NPR has a section titled “SHOP” on their front page which includes items they’re selling (anything from coffee mugs to radios); while the Associated Press sells their stories, videos, photos, books, audio clips and many other items in their “shop” section of the site. One item to note here is that there are no advertisements on either of these websites. In contrast, BBC has advertisements on their front page for outside companies (Viagra, American express, L.L.Bean, etc). They even include a link to “advertise with us”, hoping that companies will pay BBC to advertise their goods. In relation to the second point mentioned in the proposal, “advertising as the primary income source of the mass media,” AP and NPR defy this commonality.

Important Links

Audio Link:
http://www.npr.org/player/v2/mediaPlayer.html?action=1&t=1&islist=false&id=142031027&m=142032041
Transcript NPR:
http://www.npr.org/2011/11/04/142031027/political-turmoil-in-greece-reaches-a-climax
NPR story #2:
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2011/11/02/141943971/reports-aid-to-greece-wont-be-paid-without-reassurances
Associated Press- Mission
http://www.ap.org/pages/about/about.html



Project Courtesy of: Natasha Kapur, Jules Ellis, and Henisha Dhandhusaria

Posting Assignment #6 (due Sunday 11/13, 11:59 P.M.): Avatarocious? Avatarific? Avatarifying?

Great discussion this week. Great to have Thomas explain 'safety briefing' from a real Marine's viewpoint, and Wahutu tell us how it feels to watch a movie about how White People come in, plunder a country, then get spiritually saved by the people they plunder.  Yikes!  Lots of us had stuff to say about how Avatar WORKS in culture -- what feelings it produces, what positions those feelings argue you into, and how it does all that.  (Or, in technical terms, the rhetoric and politics of Avatar's visual and aural representations.)  Unfortunately, given the realities of a 200-person class, we didn't get to hear from everyone who wanted to talk.  And even the people who did talk probably wanted to say more!  So, here's an opportunity to take the discussion further.  In this week's post, we'd like you to:

1)  Choose one SCENE or MOMENT in Avatar that we HAVEN'T (yet) discussed in class.

2)  Analyze the RHETORIC and POLITICS of its visual and aural representations.  What did it (try to) make you feel?  How did it (try to) do that?  In doing this analysis, you'll want to read the SIGNIFIERS (the 'things' in the film) as closely as you can, and then move to the SIGNIFIEDS (what they 'mean'), and finally to their EFFECTS (what they 'do' to the viewer). Be as specific and detailed as you can.

3)  Based on evidence from your analysis, make an ARGUMENT about the 'message' the scene or moment conveys.  Make you can DEFEND every point you make with specific, detailed evidence from your analysis.  Our ideas about how 'fantasy' works, publically and privately, to fill the gaps between images and us may help.  Also the politics of  'myth,' hiding our historical / material realities.  Also 'post Avatar depression.'  And lots more.

* 300 words or more -- you'll need some space for this.
* No keywords required -- but you're welcome to use them if they'll help you make your points.  (And whether or not you end up using words like 'intertextuality,' 'archetype,' 'psychodynamics,' and 'structures of feeling' in your post, you'll want to be thinking in those terms anyway. ) 
* No text-references required -- but again, you're welcome to use them if they'll help you make your points.  (Anyone care to continue the debate on the 'White Messiah' archetype?)

Have fun! 

Somalian Famine

Somalia is experiencing one of their worst famines in decades and has been covered and debated all across the world. Somalia has not had a functioning government since 1991; this creates a unique reporting environment. We looked at two media outlets, Al Jazeera and the New York Times.

Al Jazeera

Al Jazeera presented the topic in a seemingly straightforward way. The articles were relatively short (generally less than 1000 words) and focused on specific aspects of the issue. They often included various numbers and statistics to describe the famine.

When reading about the famine in Somalia on the Al Jazeera website, there were two common themes amongst the articles. The first is the “humanitarian perspective”. The articles often included testimonials from people and sentimental stories designed to make the reader understand the famine from a more personal or human perspective. These articles would often describe the efforts of multiple aid workers and personal accounts of those affected by the famine. The other perspective is that of politics. The politically-tinged articles would attempt to evaluate where the blame should lie. There was much focus on the actions of multiple groups and “what they could have done differently." They simply outlined the controversy without necessarily taking a side.

The images from the articles portrayed an image of Somalia that may in fact be true, but is most definitely influenced by the opinions of the photographers and authors. The photos depict the stereotypic idea of what Somalia is- not much vegetation, dirty, barren, and impoverished. Photographers attempt to capture the essence of the story in one shot- however, there are often many details that are left out. The two different themes of articles as previously discussed (humanitarian and political) have photos to match. The humanitarian photos often included helpless children and mothers and shots of the refugee camps (above). The political photos aimed more at capturing intimidating militia men to describe the lawlessness and different factions fighting for control in Somalia (below)

On Al Jazeera the articles are presented with an image on the top and the text to follow. Due to this set-up the reader is influenced from the beginning as to the opinion of the author of the article. For example, in the article UN declared famine in parts of Somalia the reader first encounters the title, then the subtitle, and then a picture. Before one even gets to the actual article, there is already a “picture” painted in the readers’ mind about what is to follow. This can be construed as a type of bias based on the theme of the article and author’s opinion.

New York Times

“Famine Ravages Somalia in a World Less Likely to Intervene.” Gettelman, Jeffery.

New York Times. 15 Sep 2011.

I found an article published around 2 months ago in the online edition of the New York Times. I think the New York Times is fairly unbiased, except for a Mainstream bias. They can be considered the newspaper of middle to upper-class white Americans. This story is on what many humanitarians have been calling the worst crisis to strike Africa in decades. That is saying something given Africa’s history of famines and other humanitarian problems. Right away from the title you can tell this article is not written by someone personally affected by the famine in Somalia. Because of the word choice of “ravages” you can tell it is indeed a crisis. The main problem with getting food to the famine victims in Somalia is Shabab, a U.S. labeled terrorist organization. They intercept UN food supplies, often with violence and keep or sell them for their own benefit. This article is definitely slanted toward putting the blame on the policies and political landscape in Somalia for why this famine is occurring.

References mentioned in the New York Times Article

Famine Early Warning System Network – A USAID funded activity that collaborates with international, regional, and national partners to provide timely and rigorous early warning and vulnerability information on emerging and evolving food security issues.

World Vision Aid Group – A Christian humanitarian organization dedicated to working with children, families, and their communities worldwide to reach their full potential by tackling the causes of poverty and injustice.

Bronwyn E. Bruton – Is a democracy and governance expert with extensive experience in Africa. In her recent publication “Somalia: A New Approach” she recommends allowing any government in Somalia, including the Shabab, as long as it is a government.

Ken Menkhaus – An associate professor of Political Science at Davidson College, Davidson, NC. A Presbyterian founded liberal arts college.

All of the references in this article are American institutions or people.

With regards to Noam Chomsky’s ‘Manufacturing Consent’

The New York Times applies directly to the main argument of Size, Ownership, and Profit Orientation (The First Filter). The New York Times is listed as one of the 24 media giants. Because these companies are so large and publicly owned they have to please a solid portion of their boardmembers. Most of whom are investment bankers, retired government personnel, or lawyers.

The second filter is the Advertising License to do Business. In the media industry it is absolutely necessary for the company’s survival for them to collect advertising revenue. Without this, newspapers, magazines and other forms of media would have to charge the actual cost of producing the media. So the media corporations have to please the interests of these corporations for fear of losing the advertising revenue. In this article, it is suggested that Somalia is beyond being able to be helped. With frustration from America’s last attempt to help Somalia and a current economic crisis, the world is less interested in helping Somalia. I think a corporation would want Somalia to fall into further obscurity so they can be exploited easier. Currently corporations do a lot of dumping and other questionable activities in the Red Sea because there is no government there to say anything about it.

The Third Filter is the Sourcing of the Mass Media. The stories that come into the media all have sources. These sources are often government agencies such as the Armed Forces or the Pentagon. Because of this, the news relies on their stories to sell papers as much as the sources rely on the media to convey their point. The sources used in this article by the New York Times can mostly be noted as being white, American, and Christian. Also, USAID the organization that runs the Famine Early Warning System Network, is a government agency. These agencies are the only ones publishing statistics on the famine in Somalia. They certainly could make the famine look better or worse than it actually is depending on their public relations agenda.

The Fourth filter is the Flak and the Enforcers filter. The criticism any sort of media receives from the general public in numerous forms is called flak. If the flak is big enough it can be costly to the media, which is profit orientated. Flak can come from extremely powerful interests, such as the government, so media does whatever they can to avoid offending the powerful.

The Fifth filter is the Anticommunism as a Control Mechanism filter. Because this was published during the Cold War this filter is about the interests of preserving democracy. I would argue that in modern times this could be called the Antiterrorism as a Control Mechanism filter. The entire Western, democratic part of the world has rallied against terrorism. Even though there are numerous agencies of terror that have different objectives, they can all be labeled terrorist. Because Somalia has no government, they are assumed to be a safe haven for terrorism. The organization most capable of leading Somalia, al Shabab, is also the one being said to disrupting the UN food shipments. The lack of these shipments is making the famine even worse. However, according to Bronwyn E. Burton a primary source in this article, in her recent publication “Somalia: A Different Apporach” the most capable group to run Somalia is al Shabab. The United States government has labeled al Shabab a terrorist organization since 2008. They would like it if the image of al Shabab is a blood thirsty organization whose practices have led to the “ravaging” of Somalia by famine.

Comparative Analysis

There were many differences in how the famine was represented by the two different media outlets. While seemingly subtle, perhaps even unnoticeable to the average consumer, these differences can say a lot about what may be going on “behind the scenes.”

One of the first major differences that stood out was the length of the articles. Al Jazeera featured much shorter stories while the New York Times’ articles were much longer, often spanning multiple pages. This may speak to what the consumer of the news “wants” when it comes to this topic. Herman & Chomsky’s second filter says that the media must collect ad revenue to stay alive. To collect ad revenue they must have a large readership, which could be achieved by providing the readers with the type of articles that they want to read, in this case short and sweet or long and in depth. Additionally, there were relatively few articles available on Al Jazeera while the New York Times featured many more. This adds up to make the famine seem like a much more important issue worthy of coverage in the Times compared to Al Jazeera.

Another difference between the two is Herman & Chomsky’s third filter, the source of the information. Since Somalia does not have a functioning government, there is no singular, central, go-to source for information. Instead there are many experts and international institutions involved in the situation. Al Jazeera often cited the UN and other international bodies while the NYT often times used American based sources. When talking about history, this can slant the perception of what is happening in Somalia and who’s involved.

Al Jazeera and the New York Times are both reputable news sources whom one would expect to report the facts of a situation similarly. However, some of the subtle differences can highlight how the “ruling classes” filter and control the news and how history is recorded. It would be interesting to see how the situation is represented in the local Somali media. There are many factions fighting for power and no singular go-to authority (i.e. government) to get information from. This creates a situation where many of Herman & Chomsky’s filters may not necessarily apply and instead we might expect to find blatant propaganda and corruption alongside honest personal reporting

-Eric Torgerson and Garrett Kranz

Which side are you looking from?

Adam Xiong

At first I wanted to research on the views of extraordinary rendition or in other words, the illegal kidnapping of suspected terrorist and sending them to foreign countries where it would be legal to torture them into giving the information even if they knew of nothing or were just ordinary people. However I came across the topic of America’s war crimes of the Iraqi war. Now I thought this was interesting so I looked up Articles of U.S. and the Iraqi war. The only problem was that when I searched this topic I only came upon articles of the casualties of U.S. Troops, through either suicide bombings or shootouts or just some random explosion.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/10/world/middle east/11iraq.html?fta=y

In this article labeled “ Five American Soldiers Killed in Baghdad” written by Erica Goode and Richard A. Oppel Jr., New York Times Columnists, It talks about a suicide bomber conversing with a patrol unit when he detonates and kills 5 of them. The lone picture is of a body being carted away by Iraqi civilians.

The article was narrow, about half a page’s width wasnot too lengthy but still long enough. The rest of the article goes on to state other incidents where American Troops had died. Almost like a list, where you’re reading it repetitively, going down the row one by one. There were incidents such as, house bombs, rocket launchers, more suicide bombings, etc. The article didn’t have much meaning to it, just mainly pointing out that many Americans risk their lives everyday to keep America safe from terrorism. It’s mostly about U.S. casualties, which most articles on the war was and are like. This leads me to believe that the only meaningful news about the war is that each and everyday troops are dying for their country. Maybe these examples of patriotism helps stimulate the population to keep the war going and that we need to stop terrorism, where if we don’t, we become too paranoid that 9/11 will happen again. Or maybe many of us are thinking why are the troops there giving up there lives for god knows who? The New York Times’s article seems to be pretty neutral on the situation of whether or not the war is right. It simply just states the facts and that every day there seems to be more U.S. casualties. However these articles focuses a lot on the fact that American Troops are dying. Everyday and that they are being targeted more than ever. This alone tells us that a U.S. news paper, such as the New York Times, focuses much more on the side of America, where American Troops are being victimized, targeted, killed.

When I came across a clip on youtube labeled, “What the U.S. government doesn’t want you to see. Shock&awe” I was surprised to find a 30 minute documentary on war crimes of the United Sates. I followed the linked to a grassroots party satellite network.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V2uTwxAmWSk
http://www.deepdishtv.org/Series/Default.aspx?id=25

Now the grassroots party is not overly powerful and have an abundance of money at their disposal, which would sort of confirm Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky’s theory of the media being controlled by wealthy and powerful companies because there is not much information on this film if one was to google it. However this 2005 documentary itself was extremely powerful. There were stories, pictures, and footage of U.S. troops evacuating people out of their homes and using it for target practice with tanks, guns, and rocket launchers. There was a story of a man’s Son leaving for work and waiting for a cab when Americans shot him claiming he had a pistol and was shooting when he didn’t and was just trying to get to work. Another on the robbing of a New Paper workshop where their cash was stolen and the place was trashed, and troops raising their voice in at a woman activist trying to protest while he is telling her to shut up. One on a hospital where their only ambulance was shot multiple times, and searched, when they found nothing wrong inside they shot the driver anyway, this left the doctor with no ambulance to help victims in need. There are stories of elderly crippled men being detained and witnessed to be tortured, deprived of food, water, and a bathroom. Some stories of scandal such as American troops selling Iraqi oil to Iraqis for 500 dinars per liter a claiming it was from Kuwait. This documentary shows us the side of the war that no one really expects. All we ever hear about is the deaths of our people and that were there to make things better but, on the contrary Iraqis feel that they are as unsecured as ever with the Americans there. One guy said “This is about politics and interest, and the interests of America are above all. It’s all lies...the people are still helpless, because Saddam destroyed everything, he even crushed their soul. I’m not at all optimistic about the American Presence, I like the American people. God created us all to love one another. I believe very much in peace and love, but I don’t believe in the presence of the Americans. It's harmful to Iraq and to neighboring countries. It will create yet another base, and the future will show this was a crime against the entire Middle east.” Many Americans believe that we are only doing good in Iraq but in reality we haven’t improved on the situation much, if any at all. This other guy in the video said “Mr. bush lied to us. He said he will make Iraq the best country. He neither provided security or trust. All these people are unemployed, without income. We have no electricity, no water, no cars, lotting everywhere. I dare anyone to step out or drive around after dark. We have no gas, no petroleum...So where's the security he brought? “ Iraqis want the Americans to stop being the single policemen of the world right away. “Last comment, “The student has left, and the teacher has come. This is it. This summarizes everything. We the people are the Victims” I felt that when he says “student” he was referring to Saddam and when he says “teacher” he is referring to Americans. It’s sad to think that we feel we have done good to the world yet the people we tried to help categorize us with a dictator such as Saddam. This documentary was powerful in a sense. It raises the question of why we are/were in Iraq and if we are doing the right things. The film makers use real life experiences and Iraqis to tell us of the much darker side of things in the war. They tactically ordered the events to proved a powerful message, where they started with examples and experiences of war crimes, and then leads into the reactions of Iraqi citizens and their comments on their feelings. This gives the viewers full effect on the Iraqi’s point of view.

These two representation of the same topic, U.S. and the Iraqi War, are very different. The first one by The New York Times, represented American Troops as victims, where they are killed each and everyday fighting for their country, showing their patriotism. Thus giving americans a sense of pride in what there love ones are doing as well as concern for there safety. I believe that is the purpose for these types of news. It's like a form of propaganda that gets to you indirectly.The documentary however, represented America and it’s troops as antagonists, harming innocent people, often killing them, showing no respect for Iraqi’s and their properties, stealing and looting from them. The NY times seems to be focused on the point of view of America and that it really only matters about us, particularly in this article, although there were a few stories of Iraqi victims, the majority was on American casualties. Maybe this holds a stance on the fact that a fairly neutral Publishing company will stand for America because it is the American thing to do. On the other hand the documentary about Iraqi victim and corrupted American involvement seems to bring up the fact that maybe the war is wrong and that we shouldn’t be there. But then again this documentary only focuses on one side of the story, it only shows of what the Iraqi say and think, but does not show the same subject or story from the American’s point of view. The point being that whatever the subject maybe, the way one person sees it will always be different form another person standing across the street. Two different perspective looking at the same thing only to find it completely different. So where is the problem? The problem is that the media is being dictated somehow. We as Americans do not often get to see the side the documentary provides. However we often see the side the NY Times presents. So apparently Edward&Noam’s theory is correct. I don’t think so. See the NY Times has a fairly neutral stance on subjects, especially when it comes to politics. They have some liberal stances, and they have equally the same amount of republican stances.This doesn’t seem to fit the theory, if a highly wealthy and powerful company were to be in charge of the media wouldn’t it have a pretty strong stance on it’s politics? One would think so. So what really is the issue? The issue is that the government seems to have the power to dictate what the media shows by limiting its information. They can choose to give the media coverage of U.S. casualties or it can show you U.S. war crimes. The problem isn’t wealthy companies but corrupted politics and government which leads to media blackouts. People say we hear what we want to hear, but reality is, we hear what they allow us to hear.

Global Warming, an Issue or a Hoax?

     A grand narrative about the inevitable destruction of planet Earth by humans has been a hot topic, recently portrayed in movies such as I Am Ledgend, The Happening, and many more. In particular, a very good example is in the Disney-Pixar movie, Wall-E. In this portrayal, mankind had abandoned Earth as it could no longer sustain life. This fear lives in many people today, as we continuously pollute and manipulate the environment. Looking deeper into specific issues, we have come across the controversy concerning global warming.  The proponents of global warming suggest several big factors that they believe contribute to the problem which include; carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel and gasoline, methane emissions from animals and arctic seabeds, deforestation, and the usage of chemical fertilizers. These supposed causes of global warming are thought to be producing negative effects such as; the rise in sea levels, more killer storms, crop failure, extinction of species and the disappearance of coral reefs. The beginning of this tale seems all too familiar. Others completely disregard the global warming hype, and believe that it is a conspiracy. Science is highly funded by government grants. Some believe these scientists are only producing results in favor of global warming which helps gain more governmental control. Looking on both sides of the issue has been quite interesting, as the opinions on this topic tend to be extreme. Only the future will tell how this global phenomenon will be recorded in our world’s history.

ARTICLES FROM PROPONENTS OF GLOBAL WARMING:

Article One: Analysis from Blogspot.com: 

Author: Ginovieto

Cow Farts causing Global Warming!? 

http://ginovieto-globalwarming.blogspot.com/

Upon reading this blog, I first noticed that it wasn’t anything like the other global warming articles and bogs I had viewed.  This blog has a whole new twist on how some individuals view global warming and its effects.  When I think about global warming, I think about cars and buses and the large amount pollution that is being put into the air causing depletion of our ozone layer.  As stated by most global warming articles, most destruction of the ozone comes from the combustion of fossil fuels in cars, factories, and electricity production.  All of these factors lead back to the effects of humans.  It almost seems as if someone is looking for another source to blame other than humans and just decided to blame cows.  And don’t most other animals burp and fart as well?  Why put ALL the blame on the poor cows?!

Prior to reading ginovieto’s post, I never even knew that humans and animals could be contributing to global warming because of the methane that is released through burping or “passing gas.”  This blog is almost implying that before we take a bite out of that big bean burrito, we should think twice about the effects it could have on our body and eventually, the atmosphere.  In this blog, he speaks on a report from California about cows causing more greenhouse gases then pollution from cars.  If this information is correct and the source is reliable, that is just crazy!  With the majority of my background coming from science, I understand that there is some probability in this concept.  Science doesn’t look to find exact results from an issue, but rather looks for evidence and support to find the probability of something being true.  I know that there is some truth in the idea of cows and humans being main contributors to the effects of global warming.  However, it is surprising that we don’t hear more about this side of the story in the media.  Even if cows are contributing to global warming, society would be in a whole lot of trouble without them.  Cows are our source for milk, beef, and other dairy products.  With a population that is on the rise, we need as many cows as we can get!

I thought the comic picture at the beginning of this article fit perfectly.  Rhetoric can be viewed in any image; within this image, the author is arguing that global warming does not exist.  Raced bodies can be viewed in the context of the traditional “white” farmer.  Most people think of farmers as ‘white males from Wisconsin’ and that seems to be exactly what this image displays.  As I mentioned previously: males.  The gendered bodies of farmers are almost always thought of as a male, which is represented in this image.  The farmer is feeding his cow beans.  This action seems to deviate from the structured culture in that most cows are fed special food made specifically for them.  If this article is true and cows do contribute the most to global warming, then Bessy is going to be the leading contributor to the destruction of our ozone layer!  I also noticed that he is wearing a jacket so he doesn’t believe in the concept of global warming or the concept just doesn’t exist.  Along with his jacket, all of his clothes seem to be big and baggy signifying that he doesn’t seem to care about his appearance.  Maybe he lives in the middle of nowhere and doesn’t care what his self-image looks like or maybe his class determines what he can (or cannot) afford to provide to himself.  Aside from the farmer, Bessy’s eyes are very big in this picture.  It almost looks like she is scared to eat anymore because she knows about the effects that are caused from the methane released during a fart or burp.  Hey, she can’t control what happens after eating a plate full of that magical fruit! 

The blogger, ginovieto, seems to disagree with the fact that cows are contributing to the effects global warming is having on our climate.  He doesn’t state facts on his side of the story, but he strongly states his opinion in the conclusion.  Had he stated his side, I think he would almost be restating facts already presented by the media.  Ginovieto seems to be an amateur in the area and knowledge of information on global warming.  I think he concentrates on the big picture of global warming such as the information presented in the media.  As I stated earlier, when I think about global warming, I concentrate on the buses, cars, and factories that are negatively affecting our atmosphere.  My knowledge on the topic of global warming mainly comes from the media.  I would classify myself as an “average joe” on this topic in that I know what global warming is and what influences its affects, but I am unfamiliar with specific details.  I think ginovieto concentrates on the same aspects of global warming as I do.  He doesn’t seem specialized in the field of science and environmental affects.  The evidence that the media portrays constructs his knowledge of global warming, and its affects.    

Article Two: Analysis from blogspot.com

Author: Adam Voiland

Benefits of Cleaner Vehicles

http://globalwarmingclearinghouse.blogspot.com/2011/04/benefits-of-cleaner-vehicles.html

When analyzing Adam Voiland’s blog post “Benefits of Cleaner Vehicles,” one immediately understands Voiland’s stance on global warming.  The thesis of his blog post is that cleaner vehicles “would yield greater health, agricultural, and climate benefits.”  The blog post focuses on a study conducted by NASA scientists; within the first paragraph one immediately assumes a level of credibility associated with such an esteemed establishment.  The blog post argues why vehicle emissions should be reduced for the overall wellbeing of people as well as the planet.  There is never an argument made in regards to the existence of global warming, it is simply presented as fact.  Not only is global warming never addressed as though its existence may be a topic for debate, but it is also compared with very real, less controversial issues such as bronchitis and its causes.  Voiland seemingly did not intend for the blog post to be an argument for or against global warming; he simply writes with the assumption that it is and the researchers at NASA share his subject position.  When one includes the graphs at the top of the page projecting future levels of various gases in the air in his or her analysis it immediately triggers thoughts brought up from popular culture.  An Inconvenient Truth: the famous (or infamous) documentary immediately comes to mind of most readers of a global warming blog simply when he or she sees the graphs.  While not explicitly an argument for global warming’s existence, “Benefits of Cleaner Vehicles” certainly makes the reader take a stance on one side or the other of the argument.  Through Voiland’s subject position an argument is made for global warming’s existence.

The author, Adam Voiland is an earth science writer for NASA thus giving him an intriguing subject position.  In the bio on his website, adamvoiland.com, he states that he “reads [a]large number of scientific journal articles.”  Many scientists receive grants from the government, and NASA is owned by the government, thus he will have an innate, yet likely unintentional, bias in regards to many issues involving governmental control and global warming.

ARTICLES FROM OPPOSERS OF GLOBAL WARMING:

Article Three: Analysis from The Canadian National Post

Author: Lawrence Soloman 

The Ice-Core Man

fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2011/04/26/lawrence-solomon-global-warming

I decided to focus on an article titled “The Ice-Core Man” at nationalpost.com.  This article focused on Dr. Jaworowski’s Ice-Core theory, which is one of the main scientific theories that skeptics call on, for the most part everyone is in agreement that the climate is changing and despite how impactful the effect is mankind is a contributor but some skeptics still hold out, and this article was the basis of the many skeptics’ arguments. 

I really liked the article because it had numbers and scientific data from various studies and experiments of Dr. Jaworowski. The author seems to take Dr. Jaworowski’s side which is that ice core data isn’t a valid predictor of CO2 levels because CO2 is much more soluble in water then other gases such as nitrogen. Thus the low levels found in the ancient air trapped within the ice are probably not entirely accurate. The author Lawrence Solomon takes a very informative stance by giving the reader facts and evidence which really explains the whole argument.

The author of the article used the credibility of Dr. Jaworowski who is a well respected scientist throughout the scientific community to make the article credible to the common audience.  Even as a believer in global warming this article made me think twice about what I’ve heard, not only because of the CO2 levels in the ice but because of the experience Dr. Jaworowski had with the issue. He was fired from the Norwegian Polar Institute because funders of the institute felt his work would be immoral if it served to undermine “climate research.” This highlights the problem many skeptics have with all the hype over climate change; science often comes second to the political agendas of many governments and large businesses. Many research projects are sponsored by green energy companies who use the findings to highlight the need for their products. This goes both ways though because many large corporations fund projects that question the idea of climate change in order to keep the status quo. 

The author Lawrence Solomon is a member of energy probe: Energy Probe is a consumer and environmental research team, active in the fight against nuclear power, and dedicated to resource conservation, economic efficiency, and effective utility regulation. Which I thought was interesting because the group is very environmentally conscience. This adds a bit of credibility in my view because it eludes to the idea that he is writing in order to inform people of the flawed basis of ice cores, not necessarily his own agenda. 

The issue of climate change has become so popular that during president Obama’s campaign it “green energy” was one of the main concepts his campaign promising to promote. With the Arab Spring, the Japenese Tsunami, and the killing of Bin Laden climate change was pushed out of the public spotlight but due to recent files for bankruptcy by two governments backed green energy companies it has been brought back to our attention. I thought that this article was not only a good scientific skepticism but also showed some of the underlying problems that there is with climate change and how we are dealing with it. 

Article Four: Analysis from a Forbes Blogger

Author: Charles Kadlec

The Goal is Power: The Global Warming Conspiracy

http://www.forbes.com/sites/charleskadlec/2011/07/25/the-goal-is-power-the-global-warming-conspiracy/2/

I read an article called The Goal Is Power: The Global Warming Conspiracy. The author Charles Kadlec, is completely rhetorical, arguing for the position that Global Warming is a hoax. However, his goal in this article is not only to prove his point, but also to unveil the fraudulence of the other side, accusing them on many occasions of being partial by only publicizing the tid-bits that agree with their theory. Kadlec argues that global warming is not about science, but about politics. He stresses the issue of agency and high stakes in the tone of the proponents of AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming). A big concern of Global Warming believers is the regulation of carbon dioxide. However, the way they present the issue is twisted with the use of their language and specifically with the use of the word ‘carbon’ when they say it is necessary to press forward in “regulating carbon emissions”. Kadlec states, “The emissions they seek to regulate are not dirty, sooty carbon, but CO2, that we exhale with every breath”. This language is misleading and presents a partial view that skews reality. He continues with arguing that science has been corrupted by the millions of dollars that world governments pour into research through grants. He also talks about the cost of going green to stop global warming. Not only is it costing companies millions of dollars to 'go green', but the American Bird Conservancy estimates up to 300,000 birds are killed by wind farms in the U.S. each year, roughly the same as the Exxon Valdez oil spill. Kadlec focuses on the many issues that global warming proponents choose to ignore.

 It is interesting to note the source, a blog on the Forbes website, as well as other recent publications by the same author. The motto of Forbes is “The Capitalist Tool”. It is famous for publishing a list of the richest Americans. It is easy to say the audience of Forbes magazine is apart of a specific construct. The Ad Network and Exchanges Guide says that the target audience is of “affluent business professionals, whose interests are centered around business, investing, luxury, lifestyles, and politics”. These people are for the most part upper class, conservative, and successful. The author seems to fall under this same construct. Titles of his blog posts include, Why I Support Herman Cain For President, From Spreading the Wealth To Spreading the Misery, and A Gold Standard is Big Oil’s Best Defense Against Political Attack. With these titles alone we understand he is definitely apart of the conservative agenda, completely opposed to large government and its hunger for more control. 

COMPARE AND ANALYZE

With the analysis of these articles, our group has found that there are two distinct sides to the issue of global warming. Each side presents their information in a way that highlights their best interests. The proponents of global warming construct their arguments in a way that dramatizes the actual urgency of the situation. Are cow farts really a main concern of our society? Will the gas emissions from vehicles really contribute to serious health issues and global climate change if nothing is done? Could it be that scientists do not understand the CO2 levels of the past? Is the government creating an alliance with scientists, ideal results in exchange for endless grants? Yes, the world has warmed up in the past several decades, but is this just a climate cycle? These are all questions that could potentially be recorded in the history books of generations to come. At this point in time, there is no certainty in which side is correct. However, there are two ideologies that produce these opposing views. The global warming proponents tend to be more liberal and progressive. They see this as a real problem, that could have dangerous global implications. The opposers to global warming tend to be more conservative. They recognize the impact of the human society on the environment, but believe there are more urgent issues at hand. These two groups are battling for control of the public opinion on global warming. We have analyzed views from both sides, as well as a view of an 'average joe' who was inclined to chime in on the issue. Every source we found presented a partial truth. This is more prevalent through major news sources, as they are usually associated with a political view. Due to this political affiliation, it is helpful to dive into personal blogs or alternative media sources for an attempt to discover the truth. However, it is inevitable that biases and subject positions will exist in utterly every publication, especially with an issue as controversial as global warming. 

Authors: Alexis Aafedt, Whitney Weymiller, Matthew Cherrey, Tom Souder, and Jordan Wing

United States Northern Border Control By: Aleah Van Horne and Riley Anderson

The U.S has reduced their patrol of our Northern Border. They will no longer search buses, trains, and airports for illegal immigrants. The US will focus its efforts on deporting illegal immigrants who have committed crimes. Agents will still search buses, trains, and airports if they feel there is something suspicious happening.

News Sources

Associated Press

Many news sites, including Fox and MSNBC used identical articles, from the Associated Press. In the article, the AP calls the searches which are no longer taking place controversial. According to the article, this method was very efficient for the agents. The order came out at the end of September, but there were no news articles published until nearly a month later. The article states that the agents are shocked by this new order.

The Border Control has more than doubled its number of agents since 9/11, including a huge increase in the number of agents on the Northern Border Control. However, the number of arrests made has been falling. In addition, nearly all of the arrests made (97%) are made at the southern border.

People in favor of this act believe it has been a long time coming, as questioning suspicious people causes racial profiling and a violation to travelers’ civil liberties. In addition, supporters believe that agents should not be allowed to question people when there is no proof that something is wrong. Those opposed believe that the tactic that is no longer allowed was successful at catching “unlawful” immigrants. The article includes a story from Gene Davis, a retired deputy chief in the Border Patrols sector in Blaine, Washington, that tells of how one of these checks led to the arrest of Gazi Ibrahim Abu Mezer, who later tried to bomb the New York subway system. A bomb suspect was also discovered in one of these searches.

I was surprised to find the same article over and over again on the main news websites. While I know that it is common to ‘borrow’ many of the stories, I thought that this article was fairly controversial, and that each news company would put their own spin on it. The AP’s article was fairly unbiased, as far as I can see at least, but there are some arguments that could be made to support ideologies that lean either to the left or to the right. Most obviously, the topic of illegal immigration. This article states that our country will now focus on catching illegal immigrants who have committed a crime. Some (usually those leaning left) would find this perfectly fine, and be in support of the new act. However, those who believe illegal immigrants should never be allowed in our country (generally those who lean right) will disagree with this act. Because major news corporations tend to have a leaning (slight or otherwise), I was surprised to find that they did not interpret this story in their own way. Not only did they all publish an identical article, but they also did not have a follow up article that stated their stations particular beliefs about the subject.

For this reason, we decided to compare the news articles to blog posts.

Blog Posts

Before looking for blog posts covering the news article, I decided to look at the comments below MSNBC’s article. Among the comments I found one that showcased what others were afraid to say. It said, “We’re only trying to lock down this country from brown people. White people sneaking in from the north are okay!!!” As I searched for blogs covering this story, I began to see truth in their comment. I noticed what little coverage this story was getting outside of the Associated Press articles. Americans aren’t very concerned about securing the northern border. What little concerns they have are focused on Mexicans or terrorists sneaking into the U.S. through Canada. The Wall Street Journal published a quote from Border Patrol Spokeswoman, Kerry Rogers, regarding the northern border. Rogers said, “You’re not going to find Mexicans coming in through the north, generally.”

Another thing I found interesting was the type of bloggers that were covering the story. I found it extremely difficult to find any liberal or leftwing bloggers talking about the decrease in northern border control. The main group that was reporting on this issue was people from the far right. Their blog posts mostly criticized the Obama administration for “putting our country in danger” and “sympathizing with illegal immigrants”. One such case was a post on the blog goon.sayanything.com. The blogger was very blunt with his opinions and didn’t use language that beat around the bush. In his post, he said, “Looks like Obumble [Obama] and the Democrats are trying to make sure that the Border Patrol doesn’t deport their voting base.”

Once I started looking for leftwing bloggers’ opinions, my search became much more difficult. I found numerous posts about their opinions on the cruelty of the tactics used by the Border Patrol agents, but I found very few articles about the removal of these agents. This led me to believe that in the internet world, the rule “If you don’t have anything nice to say, don’t say anything at all” doesn’t apply. In fact, I feel as though the opposite is true. Nobody wants to read an article about how everything in the world is fine and dandy. If it’s not controversial or entertaining in some way, it’s not worth publishing. The same ideology holds true for all media; it needs a certain shock value.

One of the more liberal posts that I found was from canadaupdates.com. This post is fairly unbiased until the author adds two words that show their opinion. When talking about the checks at various transportation hubs, they write, “This practice was, no wonder, criticized widely by several immigrant rights groups.” With the addition of “no wonder” the author showcases his liberal opinion against the Border Patrol.

There’s something about being behind a computer that gives the bloggers a sense of courage. They aren’t afraid to bluntly share their feelings and opinions with the world. Unlike the mass media, bloggers have the freedom to say what they want, however they want. If the bloggers were in person or had wide exposure, they would likely change or censor their opinions.

Comparison

One of the most obvious differences between the two media outlets was the type of language used. The AP article used politically correct terms and facts, while the blogs used more opinionated ideas. If the AP stated anything biased, it was balanced out by the opposing argument as well. The blogs simply stated their own opinions, not worrying about how people who disagreed would react. If the AP were biased, people would not respect the article as much, and would complain. In addition, the news outlets that published the article would lose credibility. In contrast, when the bloggers are given criticism, it doesn’t affect their credibility or their future writing.

A similarity between the two news outlets is that they both use the same fact basis. There was really only one main article, used by many different news sources. The bloggers wrote their opinions based on these facts. This can show that what is published by the mass media, such as FOX and MSNBC, forms people’s beliefs and opinions. The media is controlled by the more wealth and well known companies. Without these news outlets, the bloggers wouldn’t have any facts on which to base their blogs on. On the flip side, without the bloggers and their freedom to express their opinions however they chose, society would only hear one side of the story, or just the basic facts.

People who read only articles published by major news sources only hear the facts that the outlets have deemed appropriate for them to publish. News sources emphasize the parts of stories that showcase their beliefs or opinions, which are in turn the beliefs and opinions that their readers will have. Even though it may seem that the articles are unbiased, the writers are arguing to support their beliefs. They often ignore parts of the stories that go against these beliefs.

It is clear that bloggers have more freedom to express their freedom of speech. This agency allows them to fully express how they feel, without resorting to beating around the bush. Because blogs are not an “official” new source, bloggers have the ability to be as biased as they want, without fear of being scrutinized.

Major news outlets provide seemingly unbiased facts about major news stories. These articles are meant to provide facts and get people thinking about the topics presented. People who have strong enough opinions about these topics write blogs. Blogs provide people with the same ideology as the blogger with their interpretation of the news story. They are often filled with facts supporting one side of the story, in an effort to convince readers that their opinion is the right one. Both sources of information are important when forming your own opinion on major news stories.

Links

http://world-news.newsvine.com/_news/2011/10/28/8527301-apnewsbreak-us-northern-border-checks-scaled-back

http://goon.sayanythingblog.com/2011/10/29/us-scales-back-northern-border-checks/

http://www.canadaupdates.com/content/us-relaxes-north-border-checks-undocumented-immigrants-16990.html

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45084559/ns/us_news-security/#.TrWMwvTiGU-

HIV Testing by Alisa Helland & Sara Havemeier

One form of a media outlet we looked at was CNN. The article we looked at was titled, Doctors Urge HIV Testing Starting at 16. This article was written by Caitlin Hagan and was published on October 31, 2011. The article discussed how doctors are starting to urge HIV testing starting at the age of 16. This article includes a picture at the beginning (seen above) and is then followed by twelve paragraphs detailing what the article is about. The layout of the article makes it very easy for the reader to read because it is spaced out and doesn’t strain the reader’s eyes. The article contains 524 words supported by six different quotes from a variety of sources. The sources used in this article are American Academy of Pediatrics Dr. Jaime Martinez, an adolescent medicine specialist with Stroger Hospital of Cook County in Chicago who deals with HIV infections daily, and the Center for Disease Control. The article also primarily focuses on statistics of how HIV testing is offered to sexually active youth but they are not actually going out and getting tested. The article also provides details about how getting tested prevents teens from spreading the disease. However, there is one statistic that doesn’t support the article very well because it is not very recent. The statistic talks about how in 2006, more than 1.1 million HIV positive people living in the United States. However, one downfall to this article is that it doesn’t share the sources with the reader. The next form of media we looked at was MSNBC. Group calls for HIV screening of teens who have sex, is a news article that was published on October 31, 2011 by, Thomson Reuters. Using Health on msnbc.com as a media outlet to follow the coverage published, a 622 word news article was presented to viewers of MSNBC. Reuters states that the American Academy of Pediatrics claimed that adolescents that are sexually active and teens age 16 and older, in high risk HIV areas, should be tested for HIV. The article resulted stating the issues, that some pediatricians and doctors were uncomfortable testing such young individuals, and the costs may not be worth the screenings. The story is presented in twenty-four sentences, and six quotes used to summarize this issue. The quotes are a useful way to support the message being presented to us. The length of the article was relatively short, but was quite informative with facts. The story is also constructed with numerous lines of space between a sentence, quote, or group of two or three sentences. This can be seen as a easier for a reader or more difficult, depending on their preference. The article on msnbc.com had no use of pictures or links to other articles related to this issue to help emphasize, and draw attention to it. A source was used to write this story, http://bit.ly/cxXOG Pediatrics, and it is a reliable source on “The American Academy of Pediatrics”. There are many links within this source to articles on other health issues that may be relatively or closely related to this one.

When comparing these two articles and how they portray whether people should be tested for HIV, starting at the age of sixteen, there are many differences, but also some similarities when it comes to ideology, rhetoric, and subjectivity. In the first article there is a picture of a doctor testing blood, which is a form of ideology, and gives people something to connect with. It shows them what they will see if they get tested. By the background of the picture being blurry it focuses the attention of the reader on the doctor’s hands and what the action he is performing. We assume that the doctor is doing some form of testing with the blood, and it gives us the sense that the procedure is simple. Also by seeing the doctor wear gloves the reader can feel that the testing is safe and going to be beneficial for oneself. This view of the image is a common one that has been seen throughout our history. As a nation we assume that our medical care will be safe, fast, and simple. More times than less, individuals who visit the doctor experience situations like getting their blood tested, as we assume this photo is showing. The second article lacks a picture, however, the use of a source persuades the reader to believe the message being presented. This can be seen as use of rhetoric. An individual being able to view the source shows more dependability on what they are reading. Having something we can depend and trust, is highly valued by individuals throughout history. Another usage of rhetoric seen in both of the works is including statistics throughout them. Many of the statistics demonstrated how the number of people infected with HIV is increasing every year. This shows the urgency for citizens to get tested at an early age, and it also uses a fear factor of how it is likely to spread. Statistics have been used for many decades support or disprove theories. The presence of percentages detailing the accuracy of HIV testing is another tool of persuasion or rhetoric. The audience is also presented with a number of quotes from doctors about facts on HIV, and their personal opinion of testing at an early age. Having a higher subjects perspective on the issue gives a specific interpretation of HIV screening. Doctors are viewed as very knowledgeable people. Their opinions are highly valued therefore including these quotes persuades and comforts the reader. Incorporating the doctor’s quotes into the article can be viewed as rhetoric and subjectivity. Overall, the article from CNN and the article from MSNBC were constructed with many aspects the same. The usage of pictures, sources, statistics and quotes being presented shows the stories are well constructed and informational. In general these constructions help bring the reader to the message being shown.

The fact that ideology, rhetoric, and subjectivity are shown throughout both of these relatively short articles demonstrates that these types of classes control much of the news today. If we were to look at many other articles written throughout many other media outlets we would predict to see these and many other classes used. The outcome of our journalism project presents us with the thoughts that “leading classes” have much to do with what is posted in the news.