Wednesday, June 23, 2010
Headlines and Journalistic Differences Across the Pond?
When reading or listening to U.K. news reports (namely the BBC), I tend to notice a difference in the way things are presented vs. in U.S. media, especially with regard to the headline or the lead-in. For example, immediately following Obama's meeting with General McChrystal today, the BBC website homepage read something along the lines of "Fate of U.S. Commander Uncertain" while the Boston Globe and the New York Times tended more towards neutral headlines on the story, like: "Obama's Meeting with McChrystal Concludes." Half an hour later, when the news broke that McChrystal had been fired, the U.K. media was direct: "Obama Fires U.S. Afghan Commander," while the U.S. media was again more gentle in tone: "Obama Relieves McChrystal of Command." These are somewhat tame recent examples (vs. more extreme examples that sometimes arise) of what I tend to see as a trend in the way the top U.K. media presents its stories vs. the way the top U.S. media does the same. I am not sure if I prefer one over the other, but it gets me thinking about how journalism takes different forms based on culture and nationality.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This is an interesting observation. As a citizen of Canada, a country which was designed by the Monarchy but deeply influenced by our neighbours to the south, I find it fascinating (although not surprising) that our coverage favoured the softer American angle as opposed to the British perspective. These differences can be analyzed/criticized in a variety of ways. However, I think it can be simply broken down to a matter of distance. Reporting from across the ocean allows for a harder line. For those of us north of the border, there exists a kind of cultural cohesion. Although we celebrate our English and French heritage, we are firstly “Canadian” and secondly “North American”. The result of which is to more closely abide by certain rules of language. In this case, it seems more proper to say he was “relieved” as opposed to “fired”, in that military men are “relieved from duty”. To use the term “fired” would imply that he was discharged - Something which has yet to happen. The British press need not make such distinctions, as they are not so directly affected.
ReplyDelete