Gannett is the company which publishes USA Today, the #2 newspaper in the United States, with a daily circulation of nearly 2 million readers. The only paper which is read by more people than USA Today is the Wall Street Journal (owned by Ruppert Murdoch's News Corp.). Gannett is, in fact, the number one news publisher in the nation, with 84 daily newspapers and 850 non-daily publications. Of the nation's 100 biggest papers, Gannett publishes 13.
It also broadcasts from 23 American TV stations, with a total of 20 million viewers. In addition, 27 million people (16% of American internet users) browse Gannett sites. Furthermore, Gannett has installed TV sets in office buildings (waiting rooms, elevators, lobbies) which broadcast news and entertainment to around 3 million viewers.* This means that someone reading USA Today, then surfing the internet, then watching TV, after coming home from an office building, may have seen the same "news" from 4 apparently different sources.
If media inform you four times a day "There are terrorists out there," you will begin to believe. If these media tell you that the president is doing a good job on climate change, you may rest assured that it is so. Many viewers and readers do not have time or interest enough to pursue the matter further, so their "reality" is defined by Gannett and similar mainstream news sources.
The company's British arm publishes 17 daily papers and 200 weekly papers, reaching 13 million people a week. In addition, its web presence "informs" 6 million web users. Most of its papers are distributed free, for the purpose of selling advertising mixed with feel-good local news. But it also publishes the Glasgow Herald and the Lancashire Telegraph.*
* (These data come from the company's website, accessed this month.)
Because USA Today is known for shallow reporting and a conservative outlook, I formed a hypothesis (use your dictionary - that's an important word) that all of its papers would react to the Copenhagen Conference with empty "feel-good" reporting that left readers unaware of the tragic failure of that summit meeting. Mostly, I was right.
USA Today had this headline on December 19th:
U.N. chief says 'we have a deal' on climate change
(While the first two paragraphs extolled the Conference, the third paragraph introduced some "balanced reporting".)
"Obama's successful 11th-hour bargaining Friday with China, India, Brazil and South Africa— the world's key developing nations — sets the stage for future cooperation between developed and developing nations. But the resulting "Copenhagen Accord" was protested by several nations that demanded deeper emissions cuts by the industrialized world and felt excluded from the major-nation bargaining process."
Some of the objections to the "deal" were mentioned, but the general approval of world leaders was noted and the supposed advantages of the treaty were enumerated. The fairly long article ended by noting that:
"The $100-billion-a-year climate aid goal set for 2020 falls below estimates made in some expert studies, including by the World Bank, which foresee a need for hundreds of billions of dollars each year to combat global warming as seas rise, species go extinct, farmlands go dry and storms become more severe."
In other words, the climate comes down to politicians talking and money moving around. The article, significantly, was not generated by Gannett, but by Associated Press (AP), which (along with UPI, Reuters and AFP) generate quite a bit of news content around the English-speaking world. While covering various objections to the Copenhagen Summit, this article left the reader assuming that everything will be all right, as long as we spend enough money. (This financialization of the environment allows rich investors to manipulate "carbon credits" and make fortunes, but may not be counted on to solve the climate crisis, in my humble opinion.)
Now, USA Today is a national newspaper, and uses AP news. What about the local papers Gannett runs? The Honolulu Advertiser's most up-to-date story was filed Dec. 17 (before an agreement was reached) and had little to report. The Indianapolis Star had not even covered the Summit, but ran this (Dec. 12) story:
The new socialism
"The raid on the Western treasuries is on again, but today with a new rationale to fit current ideological fashion. With socialism dead, the gigantic heist is now proposed as a sacred service of the newest religion: environmentalism.
"One of the major goals of the Copenhagen climate summit is another NIEO shakedown: the transfer of hundreds of billions from the industrial West to the Third World..."
The Des Moines Register's latest story, when I checked on the 20th, was a Dec. 17 commentary that relations with China could be improved at the Climate Summit. It urged new respect for China. Des Moines, located in America's farming Midwest, is a large exporter of American food products. The previous day's article had noted that Tom Vilsack, Obama's Agriculture Secretary (former governor of Iowa) had given a speech in Copenhagen. The environmental issues of the Conference were not discussed in either article.
I checked several smaller Gannett papers across the US and they had generally ignored Copenhagen. Fine. I went to the British (Newsquest) papers that Gannett owns. Predictably, the smaller ones failed to mention any significant international news. But Lancashire is a large industrial town in Britain, source of quite a lot of carbon emissions. The Lancashire Telegraph had completely ignored the Summit, too.
So I was quite surprised to see not one but a series of scathing critiques in the Glasgow Herald. It's Dec. 19 article was titled:
Copenhagen: The deal explained
(After detailing the failures of the deal, the article noted that some politicians held out hope, but concluded:)
"But if this is, as leaders said, the first step, then it is the first step on what seems likely to be a long and difficult road."
The next day, one of the paper's editors printed an even more strongly worded editorial:
Copenhagen climate deal ‘a disaster for the planet’
Since this conforms to my own bias (yes, of course I have one), I was interested to find out how a Gannett paper had completely contradicted the overwhelming tendency to minimize objections to Copenhagen. I wrote to the paper, which was purchased by Gannett six years ago. When I get a reply, I will share it with the class.
2009年12月26日 星期六
2009年12月10日 星期四
Looking at the news-makers
I sent out 29 pages of articles about the environment. While looking up articles I found some news sources that should be added to the list I offered 12/1. These two offer a non-American point of view on the news:
http://news.xinhuanet.com/ and http://news.xinhuanet.com/english Xinhua News Agency is, of course, an organ of the P.R.C. government. Its news and views are those deliberately published by the Chinese state. While this is not a very reliable source of general news, Xinhua makes an interesting comparison to the news and views of the American press. Its carefully chosen language on Copenhagen may be worth reading.
http://www.spiegel.de/international Der Spiegel is a famous German newspaper, and the international edition is published online in English. Because it is "out of step" with the American government and media, one occassionally finds a different sort of news here. Spiegel may be critical of the Afghan war, for instance, or look at trade issues quite differently than the New York Times.
A third source is:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/
The Times is part of Rupert Murdoch's News Corp., which also owns quite a large number of other famous media:
The Wall Street Journal
The Sun (a London tabloid)
Fox News
Sky Satellite Network
Star TV
National Geographic Channel Worldwide
20th Century Fox (movie and TV studios)
HarperCollins (huge book publisher)
Digital News Media (a popular Australian digital news source)
My Space
Murdoch was also responsible for the creation of the Weekly Standard, a neocon opinion magazine edited by William Kristol:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/content/public/articles/000/000/006/025sapgi.asp
As luck would have it, Kristol knew Rupert Murdoch thanks to a mutual friend, Irwin Stelzer. So when Murdoch dropped by Kristol's office a few weeks later, Kristol popped the question. Would he be interested in funding a new conservative magazine? Yes, he said. To lock up the deal, Kristol, Podhoretz, Tell, and I met over dinner with Murdoch in March 1995 at his home in Beverly Hills. Thanks to Murdoch's generosity, The Standard was born a couple of months later.
Murdoch's relationship with the state of Israel can be seen in this Jerusalem Post article he wrote:
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1237392665709&pagename=JPArticle%2FShowFull
This is what the Center for American Progress (an American think tank with strong connections in the Obama administration) has to say about Murdoch:
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2004/07/b122948.html
'But who is the real Rupert Murdoch? As this report shows, he is a far-right partisan who has used his empire explicitly to pull American political debate to the right.
'… Murdoch owns the Weekly Standard, the neoconservative journal that employed key figures who pushed for war in Iraq. As the American Journalism Review noted, the circulation of Murdoch's Weekly Standard "hovers at only around 65,000. But its voice is much louder than those numbers suggest." Editor Bill Kristol "is particularly adept at steering Washington policy debates by inserting himself and his views into the discussion." In the early weeks of the War on Terror, Kristol "shepherded a letter to President Bush, signed by 40 D.c= opinion-makers, urging a wider military engagement." [Source: AJR, 12/01]
'… The last governor of Hong Kong before it was handed back to China, Chris Patten, signed a contract to write his memoirs with Murdoch's publishing company, HarperCollins. But according to the Evening Standard, when "Murdoch heard that the book, East and West, would say unflattering things about the Chinese leadership, with whom he was doing satellite TV business, the contract was cancelled. It caused a furor in the press - except, of course, in the Murdoch papers, which barely mentioned the story." According to BusinessWeek, internal memos surfaced suggesting the canceling of the contract was motivated by "corporate worries about friction with China, where HarperCollins' boss, Rupert Murdoch, has many business interests." [Evening Standard, 8/13/03; BusinessWeek, 9/15/98]
'… Time Magazine reported that while Murdoch is supposedly "a devout anti-Soviet and anti-communist" he "became bewitched by China in the early '90s." In an effort to persuade Chinese dictators that he would never challenge their behavior, Murdoch "threw the BBC off Star TV" (his satellite network operating in China) after BBC aired reports about Chinese human rights violations. Murdoch argued the BBC "was gratuitously attacking the regime, playing film of the massacre in Tiananmen Square over and over again." In 1998 Chinese President Jiang Zemin praised Murdoch for the "objective" way in which his papers and television covered China. [Source: Time Magazine, 10/25/99]'
The Times Online is often a source of breaking news. But it's good to compare its viewpoint with that of the Guardian, which is run by the Scott Trust on a non-profit basis, dedicated to "liberal journalism". These two British papers represent opposite sides of the politcal fence on several issues, and you may find it interesting to see both sides.
It's amazing that one man can so affect the information that Americans (and thus Taiwanese) receive, however. Of course, he's not the only powerful media tycoon. We'll look at some more next week.
http://news.xinhuanet.com/ and http://news.xinhuanet.com/english Xinhua News Agency is, of course, an organ of the P.R.C. government. Its news and views are those deliberately published by the Chinese state. While this is not a very reliable source of general news, Xinhua makes an interesting comparison to the news and views of the American press. Its carefully chosen language on Copenhagen may be worth reading.
http://www.spiegel.de/international Der Spiegel is a famous German newspaper, and the international edition is published online in English. Because it is "out of step" with the American government and media, one occassionally finds a different sort of news here. Spiegel may be critical of the Afghan war, for instance, or look at trade issues quite differently than the New York Times.
A third source is:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/
The Times is part of Rupert Murdoch's News Corp., which also owns quite a large number of other famous media:
The Wall Street Journal
The Sun (a London tabloid)
Fox News
Sky Satellite Network
Star TV
National Geographic Channel Worldwide
20th Century Fox (movie and TV studios)
HarperCollins (huge book publisher)
Digital News Media (a popular Australian digital news source)
My Space
Murdoch was also responsible for the creation of the Weekly Standard, a neocon opinion magazine edited by William Kristol:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/content/public/articles/000/000/006/025sapgi.asp
As luck would have it, Kristol knew Rupert Murdoch thanks to a mutual friend, Irwin Stelzer. So when Murdoch dropped by Kristol's office a few weeks later, Kristol popped the question. Would he be interested in funding a new conservative magazine? Yes, he said. To lock up the deal, Kristol, Podhoretz, Tell, and I met over dinner with Murdoch in March 1995 at his home in Beverly Hills. Thanks to Murdoch's generosity, The Standard was born a couple of months later.
Murdoch's relationship with the state of Israel can be seen in this Jerusalem Post article he wrote:
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1237392665709&pagename=JPArticle%2FShowFull
This is what the Center for American Progress (an American think tank with strong connections in the Obama administration) has to say about Murdoch:
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2004/07/b122948.html
'But who is the real Rupert Murdoch? As this report shows, he is a far-right partisan who has used his empire explicitly to pull American political debate to the right.
'… Murdoch owns the Weekly Standard, the neoconservative journal that employed key figures who pushed for war in Iraq. As the American Journalism Review noted, the circulation of Murdoch's Weekly Standard "hovers at only around 65,000. But its voice is much louder than those numbers suggest." Editor Bill Kristol "is particularly adept at steering Washington policy debates by inserting himself and his views into the discussion." In the early weeks of the War on Terror, Kristol "shepherded a letter to President Bush, signed by 40 D.c= opinion-makers, urging a wider military engagement." [Source: AJR, 12/01]
'… The last governor of Hong Kong before it was handed back to China, Chris Patten, signed a contract to write his memoirs with Murdoch's publishing company, HarperCollins. But according to the Evening Standard, when "Murdoch heard that the book, East and West, would say unflattering things about the Chinese leadership, with whom he was doing satellite TV business, the contract was cancelled. It caused a furor in the press - except, of course, in the Murdoch papers, which barely mentioned the story." According to BusinessWeek, internal memos surfaced suggesting the canceling of the contract was motivated by "corporate worries about friction with China, where HarperCollins' boss, Rupert Murdoch, has many business interests." [Evening Standard, 8/13/03; BusinessWeek, 9/15/98]
'… Time Magazine reported that while Murdoch is supposedly "a devout anti-Soviet and anti-communist" he "became bewitched by China in the early '90s." In an effort to persuade Chinese dictators that he would never challenge their behavior, Murdoch "threw the BBC off Star TV" (his satellite network operating in China) after BBC aired reports about Chinese human rights violations. Murdoch argued the BBC "was gratuitously attacking the regime, playing film of the massacre in Tiananmen Square over and over again." In 1998 Chinese President Jiang Zemin praised Murdoch for the "objective" way in which his papers and television covered China. [Source: Time Magazine, 10/25/99]'
The Times Online is often a source of breaking news. But it's good to compare its viewpoint with that of the Guardian, which is run by the Scott Trust on a non-profit basis, dedicated to "liberal journalism". These two British papers represent opposite sides of the politcal fence on several issues, and you may find it interesting to see both sides.
It's amazing that one man can so affect the information that Americans (and thus Taiwanese) receive, however. Of course, he's not the only powerful media tycoon. We'll look at some more next week.
2009年12月7日 星期一
Under-reported stories that will change your Life
A couple of weeks ago, I mentioned a story that will change Taiwan and the world: a report by the United States Navy announcing that it soon will be unable to protect its interests along Asia’s Pacific coastline. This means that Japan, Korea, Okinawa, Taiwan and the Philippines are no longer under U.S. protection. Below is the link to the Bloomberg story. Bloomberg is one of America’s most respected financial news sources, and its main owner is the Mayor of New York, Michael Bloomberg. He is also called the 8th richest American by Forbes, which claims he has a personal fortune of $16 billion. The world is like that.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601080&sid=annrZr9ybk7A
China’s New Missile May Create a ‘No-Go Zone’ for U.S. Fleet
That story was not followed up in the New York Times or other mainstream news sources. As far as I know, it has not been reported in Taiwan. Why? Because it would cause panic and a lack of confidence in the economy. This news will change the world, but the corporations who control the news dare not stress the implications. Only those who are really trying to get the real news will get it.
Here’s another story, reported in the Guardian, but ignored by the American and Taiwanese media. Again, the implications of the story are huge. And that’s why the story has been buried.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/09/peak-oil-international-energy-agency
Key oil figures were distorted by US pressure, says whistleblower
Watchdog's estimates of reserves inflated says top official
"Many inside the organisation believe that maintaining oil supplies at even 90m to 95m barrels a day would be impossible but there are fears that panic could spread on the financial markets if the figures were brought down further. And the Americans fear the end of oil supremacy because it would threaten their power over access to oil resources," he added.
This story – which has not appeared in the mainstream US or Taiwan news (!) – implies that the financial markets (Wall Street, London, Taipei, Hong Kong, Shanghai) are being manipulated to believe that continuous growth is possible when it is not. The world economy needs energy to produce wealth, and it needs more and more energy if it is going to grow. If the economy does not grow, it collapses. Non-growth is called "Recession". If the economy shrinks enough, it’s called a "Depression". (Think: 1930s.)
That’s because economic growth is based on debt with interest payments. If you borrow 100 dollars at 4% interest, you must repay the 100 dollars PLUS the interest. If everyone is trying to do this at the same time, the total economy must grow by 4% or many will fail to pay their debts. The total exposure of the financial system to risky debts (derivatives) is now over $1 quadrillion. That’s A MILLION BILLIONS.
The BBC reports:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/robertpeston/2008/10/a_global_solution_needed.html The derivatives market represents a debt of 1.2 QUADRILLION dollars globally. There is not 1.2 Quadrillion dollars in existence in all the currency on earth. Much of that derivatives are loans for gambles made at 10% and then passed on at another % and so on and so on. The institutions left holding the debt have on their books (in writing) assets worth trillions, BUT are in reality debts that could never possibly be be repaid as the money does not, and has never existed.
This is why, although the mainstream media continue to comment on Obama's "green shoots", there is a much larger economic collapse in store for the world.
Dr. Colin Campbell, one of the world’s foremost oil geologists, replied to the Guardian story about phony oil statistics with (among many other comments) these words:
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/5970
“In fact, today 28 billion barrels a year support a world population on 6.7 billion people, but by 2050 the supply will have fallen to a level able to support less than half that number in their present way of life.”
The meaning of Campbell’s statement is obvious: either there will be less than 3.4 billion people in 2050, or they will, on the average, be living a lifestyle only half as wonderful and convenient. (Or something between the two.) For us, in the first world, living with only half of the resources we now enjoy would be very frustrating, but it would be endurable. For the “bottom billion” it certainly means starvation.
That's why distorted statistics form the basis of the news you read, such as Obama’s famous “green shoots”. If the general public knew that our economy will not grow, but shrink over the next generation, it would be very upset – and in no mood to buy more stuff from the global corporations who are responsible for the mainstream news. Much of the real news is not comfortable, so it’s seldom mentioned.
You, as intelligent world citizens, want to know what’s really going on – not just accept what the mainstream media are telling you. That way, you can plan your own lives in a way that maximizes your chances for survival and happiness. And to get the real information, you have to really try. It’s hard work, especially for ESL students. I am trying to help you.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601080&sid=annrZr9ybk7A
China’s New Missile May Create a ‘No-Go Zone’ for U.S. Fleet
That story was not followed up in the New York Times or other mainstream news sources. As far as I know, it has not been reported in Taiwan. Why? Because it would cause panic and a lack of confidence in the economy. This news will change the world, but the corporations who control the news dare not stress the implications. Only those who are really trying to get the real news will get it.
Here’s another story, reported in the Guardian, but ignored by the American and Taiwanese media. Again, the implications of the story are huge. And that’s why the story has been buried.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/09/peak-oil-international-energy-agency
Key oil figures were distorted by US pressure, says whistleblower
Watchdog's estimates of reserves inflated says top official
"Many inside the organisation believe that maintaining oil supplies at even 90m to 95m barrels a day would be impossible but there are fears that panic could spread on the financial markets if the figures were brought down further. And the Americans fear the end of oil supremacy because it would threaten their power over access to oil resources," he added.
This story – which has not appeared in the mainstream US or Taiwan news (!) – implies that the financial markets (Wall Street, London, Taipei, Hong Kong, Shanghai) are being manipulated to believe that continuous growth is possible when it is not. The world economy needs energy to produce wealth, and it needs more and more energy if it is going to grow. If the economy does not grow, it collapses. Non-growth is called "Recession". If the economy shrinks enough, it’s called a "Depression". (Think: 1930s.)
That’s because economic growth is based on debt with interest payments. If you borrow 100 dollars at 4% interest, you must repay the 100 dollars PLUS the interest. If everyone is trying to do this at the same time, the total economy must grow by 4% or many will fail to pay their debts. The total exposure of the financial system to risky debts (derivatives) is now over $1 quadrillion. That’s A MILLION BILLIONS.
The BBC reports:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/robertpeston/2008/10/a_global_solution_needed.html The derivatives market represents a debt of 1.2 QUADRILLION dollars globally. There is not 1.2 Quadrillion dollars in existence in all the currency on earth. Much of that derivatives are loans for gambles made at 10% and then passed on at another % and so on and so on. The institutions left holding the debt have on their books (in writing) assets worth trillions, BUT are in reality debts that could never possibly be be repaid as the money does not, and has never existed.
This is why, although the mainstream media continue to comment on Obama's "green shoots", there is a much larger economic collapse in store for the world.
Dr. Colin Campbell, one of the world’s foremost oil geologists, replied to the Guardian story about phony oil statistics with (among many other comments) these words:
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/5970
“In fact, today 28 billion barrels a year support a world population on 6.7 billion people, but by 2050 the supply will have fallen to a level able to support less than half that number in their present way of life.”
The meaning of Campbell’s statement is obvious: either there will be less than 3.4 billion people in 2050, or they will, on the average, be living a lifestyle only half as wonderful and convenient. (Or something between the two.) For us, in the first world, living with only half of the resources we now enjoy would be very frustrating, but it would be endurable. For the “bottom billion” it certainly means starvation.
That's why distorted statistics form the basis of the news you read, such as Obama’s famous “green shoots”. If the general public knew that our economy will not grow, but shrink over the next generation, it would be very upset – and in no mood to buy more stuff from the global corporations who are responsible for the mainstream news. Much of the real news is not comfortable, so it’s seldom mentioned.
You, as intelligent world citizens, want to know what’s really going on – not just accept what the mainstream media are telling you. That way, you can plan your own lives in a way that maximizes your chances for survival and happiness. And to get the real information, you have to really try. It’s hard work, especially for ESL students. I am trying to help you.
2009年12月1日 星期二
How to GET the news
Newspapers tell you what they want you to think. Sometimes they actually lie, but usually the deliberate effort to change your opinions is more subtle. In order to get the real news, you must "read between the lines". That is, you must find the ways in which the paper is "spinning" the news, subtract the spin, and get some idea about what the real events are.
There are several kinds of articles in most newspapers. These include:
* breaking news You can get up-to-the-minute reporting on things that either have happened very recently, or which are happening right now. If a bomb has just gone off in Mexico City (three hours ago) Reuters (and other news services, such as AP, UPI and AFP) will send it out to all the media, including online newspapers. Yahoo and MSN will carry the story on the front page of your e-mail service, and the story will appear on the Reuter’s site. If you look at the little type at the top of guardian.co.uk, that is breaking news (or so they say – sometimes it gets a little old).
* daily news These stories are fact-based reporting on events that have happened within the last day or two. ‘Fire Kills Two at London Warehouse’ is and example.
* feature stories These are sometimes (but not always) fairly long, and analyze a general situation, rather than a particular event. ‘Pigs Prove to be Smart” was a feature story, and so was the long cover story by the journalist who had been captured by the Taliban.
* editorials Sometimes called op-eds (opinion editorials), these do not pretend to be unbiased. The author is obviously trying to make the reader understand an issue in a particular way, and come to a particular conclusion. ‘The Aggression in China’s Goodwill’ was the title of a recent Taipei Times editorial.
A feature story should be based on facts, without being too much influenced by the author’s opinions. However, feature stories always involve some interpretation of facts, both unconscious and deliberate. Deliberate interpretation, designed to give the reader a desired impression (possibly a false impression) is called spin. If the government wants to cover up an embarrassing defeat in battle, an official might say to the press: “Our brave soldiers held off the enemy at great cost of lives, and inflicted huge losses on the enemy. Our soldiers have retreated for the moment to assess the situation.” The official is spinning the situation to suggest that the army was not defeated at all, but making an intelligent move that will later result in victory. In fact, the army ran away after many of their guys were killed. That’s the news.
Journalists often pass on the spin they get from government officials, and they may also spin the news themselves. One technique involves “framing the issue”. To label the victims of an American bombing as ‘terrorists” gives the impression that all of the Pakistanis killed in the raid were 'dangerous criminals hoping to harm decent people with terrifying violence'. However, it is very hard for the journalist to know whether those killed were actually dangerous criminals. Another publication, framing the facts differently, would have called them “innocent civilians”. In fact, the only actual fact we get is that people died in an American bombing raid. This fact is “framed” in such a way as to give a certain impression.
As we read a newspaper, we need to ask ourselves what the bias of the editors probably is. By knowing that the New York Times is published by an Eastern Elite that is also represented in Ivy League universities, prominent think tanks (such as CFR) and the highest levels of government, we can guess that the paper is promoting the interests of that elite. If, on the other hand, we are reading the Latin American Press, we should recognize that the editors are interested in advancing the rights of the poor against corporations and right wing governments: their spin will highlight the crimes of their enemies and the justice of their friends. By reading the same story in two opposing papers, one can see (and eliminate) the spin of both papers, and find the facts that both papers agree on. That’s the actual news. For extreme examples of this, read a South Asian story in both the Times of India and Pakistan’s The Nation, or a Mideast story in both al Jezeera and the Jerusalem Post.
In order to eliminate the American point of view – common to almost all American newspapers – I like to review big stories in the Guardian, a liberal British paper.
If you don’t have much time to read a lot of papers, an interesting project is to read a different paper each day, for maybe half an hour. You will find out amazing things that the New York Times did not tell you. And, with all due respect, the Taiwan press simply does not cover world affairs. I recommend that you start with Africa, South Asia and Latin America, to learn soooooooo many things that you never had imagined.
Here's a list of valuable English-language online news "papers":
http://www.reuters.com/
Reuters is not a newspaper, actually, but a news service which feeds stories to newspapers around the world. It also offers this website, with the latest breaking news. I find it more reliable and in-depth than Yahoo News, MSN or USA Today, which also specialize in the latest news stories.
http://asia.wsj.com/home-page
Wall Street Journal (Asian edition) is also available in simplified Chinese (click at the top of the page).
http://wsjdn.wsj.com/
Wall Street Journal Digital Network offers more non-Asian stories, plus videos. I don’t know how to get the New York version on my computer here. That seems to mean that Asia is getting different news than New York.
http://www.csmonitor.com/
Christian Science Monitor recently stopped printing a paper edition, and publishes only online. Although it is operated by a (fairly liberal) Christian sect, the Monitor has a very good reputation for honest, thorough reporting.
http://www.nytimes.com/ and http://global.nytimes.com/
New York Times is one of America’s oldest and most respected newspapers. It’s affiliation with Council on Foreign Relations and the East Coast elite are common knowledge, and its opinions often coincide with currents of thought in powerful U.S. government circles.
http://www.sfgate.com/news/world
San Francisco Chronicle is owned by the Hearst Corporation, controlled by the powerful Hearst family, which made its fortune in media. It offers more coverage of the Western U.S. and Pacific, and contemporary arts.
http://guardian.co.uk/
The online version of the 2-centuries-old Manchester Guardian, traditional opponent of the Conservative Party, calls itself “the voice of the left.” It is controlled on a not-for-profit basis by the Scott Trust, established in 1936 “to safeguard the journalistic freedom and liberal values of the Guardian.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/
This online version of the Daily Telegraph is now owned by Sir David and Sir Frederick Barclay, twin billionaires who bought the business from disgraced financier Conrad Black. A large majority of its subscribers support the Conservative Party (says Wikipedia). It does offer comprehensive and fairly balanced reporting, though.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/
The BBC, or British Broadcasting Corporation, is noted as a reliable, fairly balanced, very comprehensive news source, which covers more on Africa and the Mediterranean than the American press. It’s owned and managed by the British government.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/
Times of India offers South Asian and world news from an Indian perspective, meaning the news is told with a Hindu bias, unfavourable to Islamic culture.
http://www.nation.com.pk/
The Nation (Pakistan) delivers South Asian and world news from a Pakistani perspective.
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/Page/IndexPhoto&cid=1123495333292
Jerusalem Post – Mideast news Keep in mind the bias toward Jewish and Israeli interests. This source is most important for finding out what the Israeli position is on American and Mideast affairs. Israel has a very powerful influence on U.S. policy. Once owned by Conrad Black (see Telegraph), its editorial policy is hard-line conservative.
Also see International coverage here:
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/Page/IndexPhoto&cid=1123495333281
http://english.aljazeera.net/
al Jazeera, published from Dubai with Saudi capital, is an excellent news source, but its bias against Israel and for Islamic culture is very strong. Click at the left for Africa, Middle East, etc.
http://allafrica.com/
All Africa is an internet news service that reports on the entire continent in fairly good English (and French). Its news stories come from 130 different media providers. The American founder, Reed Kramer, is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. So is Tamela Hultman (chief strategy and content officer and director). All Africa is registered as a non-profit company.
http://www.lapress.org/index.asp
Latin American Press, also known as Comunicaciones Aliadas, is “a non-profit, non-governmental organization based in Lima, Peru, specializing in the production of information and analysis about events across Latin America and the Caribbean with a focus on rights, while strengthening the communications skills of local social leaders.”
http://taipeitimes.com/
Taipei Times, Taiwan’s own online English news, delivers better International – and especially Asian – news than any paper on the West Coast of the United States. I was disappointed in the Oregon newspapers after reading the Taipei Times for many years. However, it is owned by the Liberty Times (Tz-you Shi-bau) and supports the DPP against both China and the KMT. It pays to stay aware of this bias when reading related articles.
There are several kinds of articles in most newspapers. These include:
* breaking news You can get up-to-the-minute reporting on things that either have happened very recently, or which are happening right now. If a bomb has just gone off in Mexico City (three hours ago) Reuters (and other news services, such as AP, UPI and AFP) will send it out to all the media, including online newspapers. Yahoo and MSN will carry the story on the front page of your e-mail service, and the story will appear on the Reuter’s site. If you look at the little type at the top of guardian.co.uk, that is breaking news (or so they say – sometimes it gets a little old).
* daily news These stories are fact-based reporting on events that have happened within the last day or two. ‘Fire Kills Two at London Warehouse’ is and example.
* feature stories These are sometimes (but not always) fairly long, and analyze a general situation, rather than a particular event. ‘Pigs Prove to be Smart” was a feature story, and so was the long cover story by the journalist who had been captured by the Taliban.
* editorials Sometimes called op-eds (opinion editorials), these do not pretend to be unbiased. The author is obviously trying to make the reader understand an issue in a particular way, and come to a particular conclusion. ‘The Aggression in China’s Goodwill’ was the title of a recent Taipei Times editorial.
A feature story should be based on facts, without being too much influenced by the author’s opinions. However, feature stories always involve some interpretation of facts, both unconscious and deliberate. Deliberate interpretation, designed to give the reader a desired impression (possibly a false impression) is called spin. If the government wants to cover up an embarrassing defeat in battle, an official might say to the press: “Our brave soldiers held off the enemy at great cost of lives, and inflicted huge losses on the enemy. Our soldiers have retreated for the moment to assess the situation.” The official is spinning the situation to suggest that the army was not defeated at all, but making an intelligent move that will later result in victory. In fact, the army ran away after many of their guys were killed. That’s the news.
Journalists often pass on the spin they get from government officials, and they may also spin the news themselves. One technique involves “framing the issue”. To label the victims of an American bombing as ‘terrorists” gives the impression that all of the Pakistanis killed in the raid were 'dangerous criminals hoping to harm decent people with terrifying violence'. However, it is very hard for the journalist to know whether those killed were actually dangerous criminals. Another publication, framing the facts differently, would have called them “innocent civilians”. In fact, the only actual fact we get is that people died in an American bombing raid. This fact is “framed” in such a way as to give a certain impression.
As we read a newspaper, we need to ask ourselves what the bias of the editors probably is. By knowing that the New York Times is published by an Eastern Elite that is also represented in Ivy League universities, prominent think tanks (such as CFR) and the highest levels of government, we can guess that the paper is promoting the interests of that elite. If, on the other hand, we are reading the Latin American Press, we should recognize that the editors are interested in advancing the rights of the poor against corporations and right wing governments: their spin will highlight the crimes of their enemies and the justice of their friends. By reading the same story in two opposing papers, one can see (and eliminate) the spin of both papers, and find the facts that both papers agree on. That’s the actual news. For extreme examples of this, read a South Asian story in both the Times of India and Pakistan’s The Nation, or a Mideast story in both al Jezeera and the Jerusalem Post.
In order to eliminate the American point of view – common to almost all American newspapers – I like to review big stories in the Guardian, a liberal British paper.
If you don’t have much time to read a lot of papers, an interesting project is to read a different paper each day, for maybe half an hour. You will find out amazing things that the New York Times did not tell you. And, with all due respect, the Taiwan press simply does not cover world affairs. I recommend that you start with Africa, South Asia and Latin America, to learn soooooooo many things that you never had imagined.
Here's a list of valuable English-language online news "papers":
http://www.reuters.com/
Reuters is not a newspaper, actually, but a news service which feeds stories to newspapers around the world. It also offers this website, with the latest breaking news. I find it more reliable and in-depth than Yahoo News, MSN or USA Today, which also specialize in the latest news stories.
http://asia.wsj.com/home-page
Wall Street Journal (Asian edition) is also available in simplified Chinese (click at the top of the page).
http://wsjdn.wsj.com/
Wall Street Journal Digital Network offers more non-Asian stories, plus videos. I don’t know how to get the New York version on my computer here. That seems to mean that Asia is getting different news than New York.
http://www.csmonitor.com/
Christian Science Monitor recently stopped printing a paper edition, and publishes only online. Although it is operated by a (fairly liberal) Christian sect, the Monitor has a very good reputation for honest, thorough reporting.
http://www.nytimes.com/ and http://global.nytimes.com/
New York Times is one of America’s oldest and most respected newspapers. It’s affiliation with Council on Foreign Relations and the East Coast elite are common knowledge, and its opinions often coincide with currents of thought in powerful U.S. government circles.
http://www.sfgate.com/news/world
San Francisco Chronicle is owned by the Hearst Corporation, controlled by the powerful Hearst family, which made its fortune in media. It offers more coverage of the Western U.S. and Pacific, and contemporary arts.
http://guardian.co.uk/
The online version of the 2-centuries-old Manchester Guardian, traditional opponent of the Conservative Party, calls itself “the voice of the left.” It is controlled on a not-for-profit basis by the Scott Trust, established in 1936 “to safeguard the journalistic freedom and liberal values of the Guardian.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/
This online version of the Daily Telegraph is now owned by Sir David and Sir Frederick Barclay, twin billionaires who bought the business from disgraced financier Conrad Black. A large majority of its subscribers support the Conservative Party (says Wikipedia). It does offer comprehensive and fairly balanced reporting, though.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/
The BBC, or British Broadcasting Corporation, is noted as a reliable, fairly balanced, very comprehensive news source, which covers more on Africa and the Mediterranean than the American press. It’s owned and managed by the British government.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/
Times of India offers South Asian and world news from an Indian perspective, meaning the news is told with a Hindu bias, unfavourable to Islamic culture.
http://www.nation.com.pk/
The Nation (Pakistan) delivers South Asian and world news from a Pakistani perspective.
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/Page/IndexPhoto&cid=1123495333292
Jerusalem Post – Mideast news Keep in mind the bias toward Jewish and Israeli interests. This source is most important for finding out what the Israeli position is on American and Mideast affairs. Israel has a very powerful influence on U.S. policy. Once owned by Conrad Black (see Telegraph), its editorial policy is hard-line conservative.
Also see International coverage here:
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/Page/IndexPhoto&cid=1123495333281
http://english.aljazeera.net/
al Jazeera, published from Dubai with Saudi capital, is an excellent news source, but its bias against Israel and for Islamic culture is very strong. Click at the left for Africa, Middle East, etc.
http://allafrica.com/
All Africa is an internet news service that reports on the entire continent in fairly good English (and French). Its news stories come from 130 different media providers. The American founder, Reed Kramer, is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. So is Tamela Hultman (chief strategy and content officer and director). All Africa is registered as a non-profit company.
http://www.lapress.org/index.asp
Latin American Press, also known as Comunicaciones Aliadas, is “a non-profit, non-governmental organization based in Lima, Peru, specializing in the production of information and analysis about events across Latin America and the Caribbean with a focus on rights, while strengthening the communications skills of local social leaders.”
http://taipeitimes.com/
Taipei Times, Taiwan’s own online English news, delivers better International – and especially Asian – news than any paper on the West Coast of the United States. I was disappointed in the Oregon newspapers after reading the Taipei Times for many years. However, it is owned by the Liberty Times (Tz-you Shi-bau) and supports the DPP against both China and the KMT. It pays to stay aware of this bias when reading related articles.
訂閱：
文章 (Atom)