Andrea Martinez
Eng. 110 C
Professor Guthrie
Oct. 14 2006
Article Comparisons
On October third, 2006,
the Democratic People’s Republic
of Korea let known its
intentions to perform a nuclear test. On October 9th, North Korea
carried out its plan through the detonation of an explosive of less than one
kiloton of force (Wikepedia). There is still wide speculation as to whether or
not the bomb was, in fact, nuclear in nature; reports from North Korea contain
statements confirming this, although no definite supporting evidence has been
released as of yet. These proceedings and the general feelings of outrage
coming from the International community have been accepted as factual by all
parties involved. However, with a topic of such International involvement,
there are sure to be discrepancies in the way that each country communicates
the issue and distributes blame. Out of fifty students, the majority
(thirty-nine) claimed to use CNN as their sole connection to the world and its
issues. Out of the thirty nine students, twenty one of them refer to a single
article about an issue in order to inform themselves about that event. Through
an evaluation of the site layouts and the coverage of North Korea’s nuclear
testing among national non-commercial, national commercial, and International
news sources in comparison with CNN, the readers will be able to observe the
variation among the different sites and come to the realization that the use of
CNN alone fails to provide an objective and thorough portrayal of the events.
In order to draw a
conclusion about the use of an article from CNN as being an insufficient single
news source, one must analyze CNN’s methods of covering a story. The layout of
CNN’s homepage is organized and easily maneuverable. It makes good use of
visuals with-out causing the viewer to be distracted and has a professional
appearance. The main points of the article are summarized at the beginning of
each main story, and multiple links connecting the reader to maps, videos,
blogs, additional information and related stories are available throughout the
text for easy access. The article, titled “U.S. Calls for Sanctions against North Korea” addresses the U.S.’s promise to enforce international
sanctions against North Korea
in reaction to the nuclear testing North Korea claims to have carried
out. The article comments that thus far
there is a lack of evidence as to whether a nuclear bomb was actually detonated
at the site, but if so, U.S. lead negotiator stated that the sanctions against
the U.S. will be “tough enough to show…Kim Jong II, that he made a very, very
costly mistake” (1 CNN). The article emphasizes the U.S.’s swift reaction in coming up
with sanctions to ensure that North Korean leader Kim Jong II “really rue[s]
the day that he made this decision” (1 CNN).
The article basically implies that the U.S. is the main figure taking a
proactive stance to address the situation, though it has International support
from key international leaders. The article provides brief insight on the
reactions of International leaders, through providing two direct comments from
Russian and Chinese ambassadors, and U.S.
officials speaking on their behalf; “China is clearly, clearly upset…I
think they realize how unacceptable this is (3 CNN)”. The majority of the
quotes and statements come from President Bush or .U.S. officials stressing,
again, that the U.S. will make sure that North Korea receives their just
dessert: “We’re going to work very hard to ensure North Korea understands the
cost of this (CNN 2)”. This article was developed through the joint efforts of
five reporters, and has been released at a time in which there is much pressure
and criticisms directed towards the White House. This could be a possible
reason as to why the article continuously stresses the U.S.’s actions to resolve the
situation; to appease the American public. However, the article closes with
statements from the Assistant Secretary of State, Chris Hill, declaring that;
“We can’t do it unilaterally. This is not a U.S. problem”. Evidently, this
belief is not shared by many among the International and National community.
Because the topic of
nuclear testing in Korea
is one that sparks global-wide concern, one should explore the coverage coming
from International news sources, not just a single national source, in order to
be properly informed. Analyzing stories from Yonhap Korean News broadcasting
and BBC News, readers can get a better idea of any parts of the story that
could have been missed. The article taken from a Korean-based news source is
titled “N. Korea looking for reasons ‘not’ to
test nuclear weapons’. The article, reported and written by Byun Duk-kun and
Kim-gyo, states that North Korea was unlikely to go through with nuclear
testing, because they were “waiting for the U.S. to give it a reason not to go ahead
with the provocative experiment” (1Yonap News ). The homepage is originally in
Korean, though it is available in English as well. The layout is very well
organized and official-looking. Yonhap’s news coverage provides information
about international events, such as ‘Italian Week’, and makes good use of
descriptive visuals, showing an image of a CNN reporter and a map of Korea
being broadcasted by CNN. The headline next to the images read: “U.S. Source:
Radioactivity Evidence is Preliminary” (Yonhap News) and a link to CNN’s
website is provided. This indicates that the Korean population is being
informed of the story as broadcasted by CNN as well as by their national news.
Nonetheless, the statements taken from this article greatly differ from those of
CNN’s article. The article reports that the chances that North Korea performed
a nuclear test are very unlikely due to North Korea’s dependency on its
alliance with China for fuel: “ Pyongyang has too much to loose” declared a
Donggok University Professor (1 Yonhap News). Contrary to the message reported
by CNN, Yonhap’s coverage plays North Korea out to be the victim; a
representative of North Korea’s Foreign Ministry declared that North Korea
would “take all necessary countermeasures ‘to protect itself from what he
called Washington’s hostility against the country’” (1 Yonhap News). A Japanese
pro-North Korea newspaper
stated that as long as the “U.S.
continues to take a hostile stance towards the North” the possibility of
nuclear testing cannot be over-ruled.
The article shows levels of inconsistency among the people of North
Korea, ending with statements from North Korean leaders affirming the
inevitability of eventual nuclear testing; “People would think it would not
make any sense for the North to conduct a nuclear test, but it is perfectly
rational for the North because it believes it is the only way to guarantee its
sovereignty and regime (2 Yonhap News)” declared a Korean political science
university professor. Though this article offers us an important perspective of
the situation, it is one sided in that it consists purely of statements from
North Korean representatives, lacks outer sources, and the reliability of some
of the sources used is questionable.
The
article released by BBC News is titled “Outcry at ‘Nuclear Test’” and focuses
on the International communities’ reaction to the testing with emphasis on
individual countries’ plan of action. BBC’s homepage is very maneuverable, has
no advertisements, and provides good visuals, country profiles, and special
reports in thirty three languages. The layout is well organized so that the
latest and more pressing news are the fist things seen. The title is more
‘catchy’ than that of CNN’s article and BBC includes commentary from Japanese,
Russian, Chinese, Korean, and American representatives. Unlike the article
issued by CNN, this article reports on the reaction of Korean civilians towards
the supposed nuclear testing: “five hundred protestors rallied against the
claimed test, burning a portrait of North Korean leader Kim Jong II (BBC 2)”.
The International communities’ overall reaction to North
Korea’s claim Is portrayed as negative: “South Korea has…suspended a scheduled aid
shipment of concrete to North
Korea… China said the claimed test ‘defied
the universal opposition of international society’” (BBC 3). The subject of the
U.S. as an instigator on
International tension is also addressed in the article; “North Korea’s official media has long warned
that the U.S.
was preparing to attack and developing a nuclear capability was the only way to
prevent this (BBC 3)”. Though the article states the points of view of many
international leaders, there is little use of direct quotes. Interestingly, a
discrepancy between U.S.
broadcasting and input coming from international news sources can be observed
in this. Bush commented that North Korea’s
current actions would contribute to further negative consequences for Korea’s
“oppressed and impoverished people who deserve a better future (2 BBC)”. Yonhap’s North Korean media agency alluded to
the nuclear test as a “historic event that brought happiness to our military
and people (3 BBC).”
Only after analyzing both international and
national methods of coverage can enough information be drawn, and an accurate
comparison be made to judge CNN’s coverage as an insufficient account of the
big picture. The two national news sources collected come from Fox News and the
Christian Science Monitor. Fox News’ homepage consists of many online news
clips and is very well organized. The site is easily maneuverable and makes use
of headlines that are informative and represent an overall objective view. The
attention in this article, titled “North Korea Confirms it has Nuclear
Weapons,” is focused on North
Korea’s confirmation of owning nuclear
weapons, and its refusal to attend any disarmament talks. The article was
written by the joint efforts of two Fox News reporters and the Associated
Press. Interestingly, this article, found on a commercial and widely viewed
news site, focuses on criticisms towards the white house coming from Korean
sources and White House officials: “The communist nation argued it needs
protection against what it considers a hostile United States” reported Fox News
(1). The article also included commentary from the North Korean Foreign
Ministry; “We…have manufactured nukes
for self defense to cope with the Bush administration’s ever more undisguised
policy to isolate and stifle the [North] (1 Fox news)”. BBC news charges White
House officials with having “downplayed North Korea’s words, saying that
country has a history of making blustering statements (1 Fox news)”. The
article does not consist purely on criticism directed towards the U.S; it
represents a broader range of viewpoints from many sources, including U.S.
Senator Chambliss, who sites Korea’s
leadership as “unstable (Fox News)”. The article ends with stating that “Bush
has…refused North Korea’s
request for one on one talks with the U.S,” and that North
Korea refused to participate in disarmament talks “after
studying Bush’s inaugural state of union speeches and after Rice labeled North Korea
as an outpost for tyranny (3 Fox news)”. Overall, the article sheds more light
than CNN’s article does on the responsibility placed on the U.S. for the state of the current
situation. Though one can argue that it is a weighted representation; only
emphasizing what the U.S. is
not doing as opposed to how CNN emphasizes the U.S.’s proactive response.
The layout of the Christian Science Monitor’s main site has an official
appearance and is well organized. It is not cluttered with too many
advertisements, and the advertisements that are present promote charitable
organizations. The titles of the many news stories available are not
extravagant, and there are some news stories featuring faith related topics.
The
article, “Will Iran follow North Korea’s lead?” opens with a statement by
Foreign Ministry in Pyongyang addressing why it would go against global wishes
and join the “nuclear club”: “The US extreme threat of a nuclear war and
sanctions and pressure compel [North Korea] to conduct a nuclear test (1
csmonitor)”. The main point of this
article is that future peace lies, for a big part, in the hands of the U.S.
and its International relations and foreign policy. The article also shows
signs of negative undertones directed towards the U.S; providing statements
from both North Korean and Iranian leaders concerning threats from the US in
the form of constant pressure, inducing the respective states to react
defensively: “More pressure [from the US] against Iran will accelerate the
nuclear project of the country (1 csmonitor)” stated Saeed Laylaz, political
analyst in Tehran. Interestingly, both this article, which provides much more
international feedback than CNN’s article does, as well as the article taken
from Korean news broadcast includes similar statements concerning how the
current situation in North Korea has arrived at its state due to provocation
coming from the US: “North Korea’s nuclear test was a reaction to America’s
threats and humiliation… not only did the United States not lift the sanctions
it had imposed…it even increased the diplomatic pressure. Such pressure finally
led North Korea
to conduct its nuclear test.” The article itself states; “Both [Iran and Korea]
have been targets of US led pressure that has grown since President Bush lumped
them in his “axis of evil” with Iraq
(1 csmonitor)”.
The coverage of this article differs from that of the CNN website in that it
freely expresses the viewpoints and reactions of International leaders, and
takes a different stance other than the one claiming North Korea to be the predator, and
the rest of the world, its victim. The title, ‘Will Iran follow North Korea’s
Lead?’ is neutral; not imposing any position upon the reader. The article also
demonstrates good use of a wide variety of sources and direct quotes to
reinforce its reliability as a factual source of information.
Articles from international
and national news sources were analyzed and compared to an article from CNN in
order to prove that the use of CNN alone fails to provide an objective
portrayal of the events with consideration all the parties involved. After
having compared each article with that of CNN, I found that no single news
source provided suitable and unbiased information that touched on every aspect
of the situation in North
Korea. CNN’s sight emphasized the quick
action taken by the U.S. in
response to North Korea’s
claim, while the article from Fox News found fault in U.S.’s method of handling the
situation. The article taken from Korean broadcasting was for the most part one
sided; consisting of statements from only North Korean representatives. If any
one of the news sources could be said to be the exception, it would be the
Christian Science Monitor, which included the perspectives of all of the
International leaders involved. To conclude, in order to acquire a full
understanding of any issue, many methods of coverage should be used, bearing in
mind that many sources are directed towards a specific audience and thus tend
to be biased.
Works Cited
Duk-Kun, Byun, and Kim Young-Gyo, comps. "N. Korea
Looking for Reasons 'Not' to Test
Nuclear Weapons: Experts." Yonhap News. 28 Aug. 2006. Yonhap News World Service. 09 Oct. 2006. <http://bbs.yonhapnews.co.kr/ynaweb/printpage/EngNews_Content.asp>.
Henneberg, Molly, Liza Porteus, and
Associated Press . "North
Korea Confirms It Has Nuclear
Weapons." FOX NEWS. 11 Feb. 2006. 10 Oct. 2006 <http://www.fownews.com/story/0,2933,146950,00.html>.
Peterson, Scott. "Will Iran
Follow N. Korea's Lead?" Christian
Science Monitor. 10 Oct. 2006. 10
Oct. 2006 <http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/1011/p01s03-wome.htm>.
Sohn Jie-Ae, Elise Labott, Jamie McIntyre, Liz Neisloss, and Barbara . "U.S. Calls for Sanctions
Against North Korea."
CNN World. 10 Oct. 2006. CNN.com. 10 Sept. 2006. <http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/asiapcf/10/09/korea.nuclear.test/index.html>.
Unnavailiable. "Outcry At N. Korea
'Nuclear Test'" BBC NEWS. 09 Oct. 2006. 10 Oct. 2006
<http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6033457.stm>.
WIKIPEDIA MAIN PAGE
ENG. 110
HOME