Obama speaks with Iranian President

The New York Times and Wall Street Journal both gave front page coverage to Obama's 15 minute phone call with Mr. Rouhani today. While they give similar information, there are some interesting differences between the two articles.

The Wall Street Journal's "Obama Speaks with Iranian President" begin by mentioning "a week of thaws" between Iran and the US, though doesn't examine what they were, exactly (assuming that the reader has been keeping up to date on the news to this point). WSJ also does something surprising: they quote the Iranian president...from Twitter. The President of Iran tweeted The President of the USA. Talk about technology taking communication between countries to a new level.

This also prompts a question that one of my professors asked recently: when, if ever, is it appropriate to use a tweet as a direct quote in the news? My argument is this: Twitter is a public platform where anyone can see the information you are putting out. And it almost seems obvious that the statement between presidents was meant to be seen and meant to be reported on. It’s a show of good will toward each other, much like the 15 minute phone call.

Both articles briefly discuss the missed opportunity for the presidents to meet in person for a friendly handshake, but the NYT is the only one to quote the Iranian president saying that the meeting was premature, and the WSJ says that diplomats from each country met just the day before. Both articles cover Mr. Obama’s future meeting with Israel as well, and that Iran is determined to have peaceful negotiations over nuclear energy.

These articles almost complement each other, one gives more specific information over the meeting of the diplomats, one gives more specific quotes between the presidents. This is a good example of why we should try to read from more than one news outlet—not just because it can help diminish the chances of reading narrow perspectives, but because not every article on the Wall Street Journal or The New York Times will be able to cover every piece of information in a situation like this one.

What I found most helpful was the level of importance that the New York Times gave to this news article. I really didn’t have a grasp on how significant the phone call was until reading the NYT article. The last few paragraphs return to the last time an Iranian president met with a US president  (The Carter administration at Christmas). They remind the readers (or inform those who didn’t know, like myself) that the reason for lack of communication between the countries developed after President Pahlavi was ousted and 52 Americans were held hostage at the embassy in Tehran for 444 days.

Instead of closing with a reminder to the past relationship, the WSJ input another piece of information: Obama’s inquiry over three missing US citizens that may be jailed in Iran or are missing. With the Iranian government claiming innocence in the situation, it’s a curious shaky start to a new relationship, especially after the reason for the deterioration of communication the last time.

Global Warming

Both the New York Times and Wall Street Journal released articles today discussing the U.N. Climate Panel's newest report on global warming. The two articles are good examples of how completely different points can come out of one event. WSJ focused on the fact that the report says "humans are extremely likely" behind global warming, while the NYT looks more at the ceiling the report puts on global emissions and the difficulties behind getting governments to change emission standards.

The NYT also devotes much more space to the topic: two full pages online. WSJ gives just one page.

The writing of each piece was completely different as well. The WSJ article was easier to read while the NYT article was a little more confusing. Both articles referred to the report given back in 2007 by the same panel, but only the WSJ compared the reports side by side, making it easy to understand the specific change and why it is important. The WSJ also made it clear that the panel still was uncertain on many factors, like how the cooling of the Pacific Ocean and the dozen volcano eruptions since 2005 played into the cause of global warming. The NYT article only emphasized the uncertainty the panel had when discussing the rate at which the ocean will rise, and the likelihood that plants and animals will be driven to extinction.

The WSJ article left room to question how effective the panel has been at estimating the rate of global warming, and...how do they know?



The NYT article went in an interesting direction by looking at the opposition: the “climate skeptics” or “climate doubters” as they called them. A side point to consider: did the author come up with these silly terms to make the “doubters” seem as silly as the name? The choice of wording is important. This article also discussed the “cautious choices in their assessment of scientific evidence.” They state that the panel estimated the rise in sea level could be 3 feet by the end of the century, throwing out estimates that lean toward 5 feet. Why? Another passage that confuses:

               “Similarly, the authors went out of their way to include recent papers
                suggesting that the earth might be less sensitive to carbon dioxide emissions
                than previously thought, even though serious questions have been raised
                about the validity of those estimates.”

This isn’t discussed for the rest of the article, though this could be made into a report all its own. Where did this controversy spring up, and why aren’t they discussing it more? Why did the WSJ avoid this statement all together?

Unfortunately, when talking about President Obama’s new, and costly, rules over coal-burning plants, the NYT states, “the president’s Republican opponents have accused him of waging a ‘war on coal.’” If it was a republican representative that spoke those words, the NYT should have stated so. By lumping every one against the new rules into the Republican Party, this runs the risk of largely misrepresenting the opponents. As another side note,  too many news outlets are doing this: making it seem like the citizens of the United States only have two points of view: the Republican or the Democrat view. If you pay attention to the news, party lines are splitting more and more, making it much harder to define the ‘values’ of either party. Perhaps because people aren’t fitting into the cookie cutter lines as well as they used to. Either way, the NYT should be more careful with word choice.

Life on Mars?

It's been a fantasy going back decades--life on Mars. But as the New York Times and Wall Street Journal published, Curiosity, the US Mars rover, has yet to turn up any evidence of lifeforms on the distant planet.

Both articles have a variety of sources--scientists that were both involved with the original findings of methane in 2003, scientists directly involved with the Curiosity, and scientists observing the research. Very little seems to distinguish one article from the other, though WSJ does clarify that several countries still plan on launching their own probes to Mars whereas NYT focuses mostly on the US efforts. I found it interesting, that everyone interviewed for both articles, especially those still invested in continuing the research, had something invested in the cause. NYT interviewed the president of Mars Society, a nonprofit organization, who was convinced that underground aquifers could hold the key to undiscovered life. 

I had to wonder if this falls under 'fair' coverage. Since this was merely a statement that life hasn't yet been found, instead of "Doubts of life on Mars cause backers to question financial wisdom in continuing the search," I think this is a good example of how there really aren't 'two sides' (or more) to cover.

I am also beginning to discover a correlation in headlines from NYT and WSJ. NYT's article "Mars Rover Comes Up Empty in Search" vs WSJ's "Life on Mars? New Doubts Emerge" is another example of NYT using language geared more toward grabbing the reader's attention. Coming up empty is a definite statement, whereas 'New Doubts Emerge' is vague--what doubts, does this mean that scientists are sure there isn't life on Mars? Or are they just having unfortunate first results? How serious is it? Like the Pope articles, these headlines strike totally different tones. Tone is important in a piece, setting the reader up for certain expectations. While these two newspapers are very serious which huge audiences, headlines set side-by-side almost give a feel for a strong fist against a casual shrug (NYT vs WSJ). I find myself preferring the coverage at WSJ; the language they use is more relaxed, and seem to cover more aspects of a topic.This is yet another bias I must be aware of while reading.

A "cool" Pope? Or a vague one?

The New York Times' article, "Pope Bluntly Faults Church's Focus on Gays and Abortion" and the Wall Street Journal article "Pope Warns Church Focusing Too Much on Divisive Issues," discuss Pope Francis' different approach to being the leader of the Catholic Church.

It is clear from the titles of the articles that there is a different tone to each: NYT appears to take a more harsh stance, while WSJ's wording appears more even--using 'warns' instead of 'bluntly faults,' 'divisive issues' instead of 'gays and abortion.' Not only does this allow WSJ wiggle room (the Pope gave a 12,000 word interview, he must have focused on more than 'gays and abortion'), but comes as less offensive. The NYT article makes the Pope come off as a man as harsh as his predecessors, instead of the warm, open-armed man that the WSJ makes him out to be.

Both articles use similar quotes, but different portions, which also change the tone of the piece. NYT recalls the Pope in a previous interview saying, "who am I to judge," concerning homosexuals. The WSJ uses more of the same quote, "Who am I to judge a gay person of goodwill who seeks the Lord?" Not only is this more specific, but it makes the Pope, once again, appear more caring.

Not that the NYT attempts to make the Pope a hardened man, they give quotes that reflect his more accepting views:
              “Some of the things in it really surprised me,” Father Martin said. “He seems
                even more of   a free-thinker than I thought — creative, experimental,
                willing to live on the margins, push boundaries back a little bit.”

It's an interesting example of how wording can make the difference. The WSJ also brings up that maybe this Pope isn't being as accepting as followers are beginning to see him, perhaps he is just vague. By asking the Church not to focus on divisive issues, does that mean he is willing to open a debate, or does it mean that he refuses to talk about the subjects at large because his new-found popularity may change? 

I also think that WSJ should have touched on the points that NYT made: the Pope used to be seen as an authoritarian figure. While the Pope says he was in his 'crazy' young years (36 years old!) and that he has changed...has he really? Or is this just an attempt to make Catholicism more appealing to the masses?

While WSJ used language geared toward a 'neutral' tone (or is my bias coming into play and their tone was more in favor of the Pope??), the NYT devoted more space and time to this article, covering more ground.

13 Dead in Washington Shooting

Reading about Aaron Alexis' alleged shooting in Washington from both the New York Times and Wall Street Journal, I noticed some immediate points that need addressing.

First, both news sites are treating Mr. Alexis as though, without a doubt, he was the one to commit the shootings. WSJ mentions that no one is sure if he said anything to the police before a shootout happened, and that officials are still trying to piece together what happened. Now, as much of the 'evidence' that seems to point to Mr. Alexis committing the crime, nothing has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt (much of the evidence seems to be coming from witnesses, which can be hugely misleading in a panicked situation like this). In fact, initial reports have witnesses suggesting more than one suspect, due to overlapping sightings in different areas of the complex. Was Mr. Alexis just an armed man, trying to find the shooter?

Each news outlet is so convinced of his guilt, that they have begun digging into his background, finding evidence of 'mental illness.' This is something I am sensitive about. My husband has Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) from serving in the Navy. Every time we hear about someone doing something harmful who happened to be in the military, it seems like people jump to the assumption of PTSD being a 'cause.' What I would like to see in the future is for A) news sites waiting to do huge background histories on a suspect, because doing them before the facts are clear make things more complicated for the audience. B) Instead of pointing to PTSD as a cause, why not think of it as a symptom: why did they have such trouble, and why weren't they helped?

It seems like the media, no matter who is reporting, looks at an act of violence and automatically begins to dig into the person(s) background--what psychological distress must they have had to carry out such an act? Instead, they should be focusing not on the psychological itself, but what caused it, and if we (citizens) have the ability to change it. In the last few months, few news sources have discussed the raise in suicides in the military, and I have yet to read any in-depth report on the issues within Veteran Affairs and why the military and the government is failing their troops so badly.

Whether or not Mr. Alexis had PTSD, or if it had anything to do with 9/11, he should have undergone psych evaluations before entering the Navy, and they should have stopped him from being processed if there were serious questions about the state of his mental health. This is what the news should be uncovering.

By not discussing the implications behind mistreatment in the military, I feel like both articles from the New York Times and Wall Street Journal are missing the big picture, and missing making this relevant to US citizens everywhere. We all know someone or are related to someone who has been in the military. This is an issue that defies race, economic status, ideology, education, and more. For making front page news and for devoting so much space to the issue of Mr. Alexis' alleged mass shooting, I'm left feeling like the journalists missed out on a story that needs more exploration.

Verizon buys Vodafone's Wireless Stake

In an article that made front page news for both the New York Times and Wall Street Journal, I find myself asking, "Why?"

The WSJ article, "Verizon Seals $130 Billion Deal for Vodafone's Stake in U.S. Wireless Venture" blatantly states that there will "likely be a negligible impact on Verizon's 100 million subscribers and involve little if any scrutiny from antitrust regulators." So why is this news? I understand this article appearing in a news source called "Wall Street" because this will have an impact on those invested in both Verizon and Vodafone, but not the common subscriber to either company. The WSJ article makes me wonder why anyone would care about this reporting if they are outside of the circle of those directly involved in the investment. There doesn't seem to be any evidence of impact on the common citizen, so why is it front page news?

And, far be it for me to sound ignorant, but I know very little about stocks, bonds, and investments. Granted, those who read WSJ may be more educated on these topics than the "average" person. Their article is filled so much with numbers and references to how the money will be distributed, that my eyes glazed over. I thought, "Why does this matter to me?"

I also take issue with the sources WSJ utilizes. When discussing AT&T's interest in acquiring Vodaphone, the site "according to people who have heard the presentations." Not only is this a very vague outline of a source (who are they, how many people were there, and why can't we know their name?), but it shows that WSJ may not have been in attendance themselves. Is this original reporting, or was the information in the article given to them from another source? Was it all verified information? The phrase 'some investors' is used often as well--to whom are they referencing? The author seems to assume that anyone reading this article has a general blanket understanding of Verizon's inner workings. I went back through the article and counted how many stated, original sources that WSJ reported and I found one. Mr. McAdams of Verizon. All of the information seems to have come from reporting outside of this article, and maybe even WSJ.

It isn't until reading the NYT article on the same topic that I began to understand the issue more, as well as the significance to the "average" reader. The NYT journalist breaks down the meaning of the deal, instead of the numbers. By discussing what mobile phone giants have done in the past to cement their positions internationally, I finally understood that this is the start of the European mobile market going the way of the USA market--we have five giant companies as opposed to hundreds of small ones. Europeans will probably start to see longer contracts and higher prices.

While still not very relevant to me, I can see the relevance to those overseas. I still don't understand why the editor believed this to be front page news, which may be a fault in the reporting. And, unfortunately, while NYT has a different original source, I once again only counted the one quote that could be attributed to someone other than a vague group of people.

This is also one of the biggest differences in journalism that I've seen between WSJ and NYT. It makes sense to me that WSJ would give more financial information, which this particular company markets more. The NYT has a broader reading market to cater to, so they may work more to make these issues readable for the average joe.