BP and oil 'Seeps': New York Times vs Sydney Morning Herald

Stats:

Number of words- NYT: 1,169 SMH: 746

Number of people quoted- NYT: 4 (2 Govt, 2 BP) 1, SMH: 5 (3 BP, 1 public, 1 govt)

Number of reporters- NYT: 1, SMH: 1

Weekend Circulation- NYT: 1.4m SMH: 304k

I looked at the latest BP coverage through 2 publications- The New York Times and my local Sydney newspaper

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/20/us/20oilspill.html?_r=1&hp=&pagewanted=all

http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-world/bp-well-stays-shut-despite-seepage-20100720-10i3t.html

Observations:

1. The NYT writes with more authority. Both articles share one quote from Admiral Allen who is the govt spokesperson:

"I authorized BP to continue the integrity test for another 24 hours ...this test could worsen the overall situation"

What I found interesting is that the SMH called out specifically that it was in a statement, whereas NYT inserts it as a direct quote, which for me suggests they were either talking to him in person or at a press conference

2. Again, the NYT includes alot more content than its competitors- giving additional coverage to the scientific elements of the rescue mission and the different options. It would be interesting to find out the different demographics to see if this reflects their audiences level of education

3. The NYT leads with a heavy govt focus - how the government is enforcing certain behaviours. The first couple paragaphs of the SMH article focus on BP's response - and an almost flippant comment from COO Doug Suttles.

4. But the most striking difference was in the content in the latter part of both articles. The SMH takes on a very human approach - inserting a quote from a local resident, but then spends several paragraphs on the compensation element, quoting the manager of BP's compensation fund encouraging people to apply for funds.

With respect to point 4- why is this the case? Why the left field focus on compensation?

My theory is that it links back to the period of Drought that Australia experienced in 2005-2007. There was alot of coverage in the paper about Government support and 'bailouts' to farmers that were going out of business due to the lack of rain. This 'help the helpless' value was very popular in the Australian media for quite some time, and could explain why the reporter has chosen to focus on this element, even though none of his readers would be eligible for compensation.