Class, please follow today and over the weekend major publications' coverage
of Thursday's crash of the Malaysian Airlines jet in the Ukraine, and the conflict in the Gaza Strip, where stepped-up attacks by Israel to
destroy Hamas tunnels left 28 Palestinians and one Israeli soldier
dead. Both news stories are dominating the home pages of major news
sites.
Please compare how a major site in the U.S., such as the New York Times, Washington Post, CNN or Los Angeles Times, is covering these stories, vs. how an overseas site such as the BBC is handling them. Before Monday morning's class, please choose one of these two events to comment on, below my post. Discuss what kinds of interactives and multimedia are posted, and what kinds of text stories are added. How quickly are major details fleshed out? (For instance, do we know who shot down the plane? Why?) Are any mistakes published and later corrected?What makes these stories particularly difficult to cover?
Three or four strong paragraphs will suffice.
Please compare how a major site in the U.S., such as the New York Times, Washington Post, CNN or Los Angeles Times, is covering these stories, vs. how an overseas site such as the BBC is handling them. Before Monday morning's class, please choose one of these two events to comment on, below my post. Discuss what kinds of interactives and multimedia are posted, and what kinds of text stories are added. How quickly are major details fleshed out? (For instance, do we know who shot down the plane? Why?) Are any mistakes published and later corrected?What makes these stories particularly difficult to cover?
Three or four strong paragraphs will suffice.
21 comments:
Based off what I've been reading I've seen a couple of differences on the way BBC is covering The Malaysian Airlines crash that occurred and how the Washington post and the New York Times are covering this story.
For instance, the BBC shows a lot of more pictures of the stories unlike the New York Times and The Washington Post. Another difference is BBC list more facts than having a storyline like the other two papers. There is also a difference in the time BBC updates their stories, they seem to update their stories more frequent than the other two papers.
I think what makes these stories particularly difficult to cover is these situations are still active and ongoing. Something new is being found out everyday and more events continue to happen. So its kind of like journalist have to continue to keep their eyes and ears open, because if they don't they may miss a really important piece of the story.
The Washington Post and CNN have been keeping up-to-date with the Malaysian Airlines jet in Ukraine. Recently, I have spotted the similarities and differences between the two news sources.
Both CNN and The Washington Post uploaded pictures and video clips that go along with the stories. CNN and The Washington Post have covered similar details such as assumptions of who shot down the planes (a rebel group in Urkaine.) The Washington Post updates their stories more timely in comparison to CNN. Both sources work efficiently in order to flesh out major details for the world to know.
I believe what makes these stories about the Malaysian Airlines jet difficult to cover is that there is more information that needs to be gathered. Those who were involved in actually shooting the plane are unknown and possible victims denied these claims. Large news sources such as The Washington Post and CNN must work on their toes in order for the world to be informed.
The Washington Post and BBC have both been covering details of the Malaysian plane that was shot down and landed in Eastern Ukraine. Some of the details differ between the two news sites as numbers change and how the facts are reported. The facts that are tough to cover about the case is what specific group shot it down between factions in Russia or Ukraine.
A difference between a particular BBC news report and a Washington Post one was that the BBC site said the plane carried 295 people while the Washington post report said that 298 people were transported.This is a crucial discrepancy because both sites said that all who were involved in the plane crash were killed so some people's records of who dies are getting mixed up.
Both sites show argument about who is responsible for the shooting and the motive. On the Washington Post site it said that Separatists boasted on social media about the Thursday July 17 shootings and said that Russia could end the ar. But also in the same article it said that a spokesman for the Russian Defense Ministry said that none of its weaponry in service had crossed the border into Ukraine. The Washington Post article also shows the feuding between the Pro- Russian separatist rebels and the Ukraine government. Both sites confirmed that it was a surface to air missile but the Post claimed it was form separatists territory. In the BBC article the place the shot was fired from was not confirmed. The BBC article did say how Ukraine has accused Russia of supplying advanced missiles to the rebels. So the main three groups that are disputing this case are the Separatist rebels, the Ukraine Government and the Russian Military.
Finally both articles talked about the victims of the crash. Both the BBC article and the Washington Post one mentioned that an amount were AIDS researchers. A difference is that the Washington Post focuses more on individual stories as it has a section on U.S. citizen Quinn Lucas Schansman who was apparently going on a family vacation. The site also said how three Australian siblings ages 12, 10, and 8 were returning home with their grandfather and that there were 80 kids total on the plane. The BBC article broke the victims up into groups. They said that some of the identified passengers who died were 154 Dutch Nationals, 27 Australians, 23 Malaysians, 11 Indonesians, six Britons, four Germans, and three from the Philippines and one Canadian. So overall both sites have a lot of information on the crash including plenty of articles over the few days the event has happened. There are similarities and differences as both sites continue to follow and update on the story frequently every day.
The Palestine-Israel conflict has been dominating news headlines in virtually every news source for quite a while. The Washington Post and BBC are two prominent sources that have been covering the event. Although both have obvious similarities,these sources also take differing approaches to reporting the story.
Both sources upload photos and videos of the conflict, enhancing the print story and bringing it to life. Additionally, both sources put a heavy emphasis on casualties suffered on both sides. However, the Post seems slightly slanted towards Israel, while the BBC is less biased, being an international news source.
The BBC also seems to have update quicker than the Washington Post. This may be because it is a global news site, as opposed to a regional one like the post. It has a considerably wider audience, and therefore a greater responsibility to provide the public with up to date, accurate information. This leads to the BBC having more factual based reports, as opposed to the Post's narrative style.
This need for instantaneous information in such a widespread conflict is what makes this story difficult to cover. This conflict has essentially encompassed the two countries, meaning many events can be occurring simultaneously. Additionally, it is imperative the information reported is correct, especially with news sites such as the BBC that reach such a widespread audience
Lately there has been lots of coverage of the Israel/Gaza conflict. Both the Washington Post and the BBC have had numerous articles devoted to the topic. While comparing articles from both news sites, I've noticed some similarities and differences in how the two publications have covered the events.
The Washington Post reported that 70 Palestinians were killed in Shejaiya Sunday, in what they're calling the “most intense day of fighting,” yet. According to the BBC, at least 87 people were reported killed in Gaza Sunday. It's probably difficult to get an exact number of deaths because clearly there was a discrepancy in the number reported. This may be partially due to the fact that the Washington Post article was last updated at 2:16 p.m. Sunday while the BBC article was last updated at 4:11 p.m. Sunday. However, both articles stated that 13 Israeli soldiers were killed, bringing the total number of Israeli military deaths to 18.
Both publications seem to update their website often, with multiple new articles posted in the past few hours on both sites. They also both have a variety of articles accompanied by both videos and photos. The Washington Post articles seem to be slightly longer than the BBC articles on average, but that could be due to website formatting.
I believe what makes these stories particularly difficult to cover is that everything is still ongoing, so reporters need to be constantly updating and readjusting what information they previously had. Another big difficulty is that there is a lot of bias and propaganda involved particularly in the Israel-Gaza conflict. Both Israel and Gaza have been using propaganda on social media sites such as Twitter to try to sway people to their side. There have also been issues in which people are claiming certain news sources are “pro-Palestine” or “pro-Israel” and aren't fairly covering the facts. For example, numerous articles claimed that BBC's articles have been “pro-Israel”; however, BBC responded that they were “unable to get the Palestinian viewpoint across,”.
Newspapers all around the world have been reporting on the crash of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH 17. From my readings, I have noticed that depending on the location tones of the coverage are different. For example in the UK the headlines and titles of the articles are caustic and somewhat opinionated. On Friday, July 18 the Daily Mail front page took sides saying that “if Putin’s involved… There’ll be hell to pay.” In the United States headlines were very informative and subjective. The Washington Post headlined their Friday paper with the title “Airliner downed in Ukraine.”
Most major newspapers and websites have been uploading multimedia aspects to go along with their articles. BBC has been posting many more images of the accidents whereas the papers in the US have mainly been focusing on turning cold hard facts into an interesting story. BBC News has been updating their website very regularly as new details and information come in.
As major details come in, the majority of websites post constant updates. As of now, the public is unaware of who shot down the plane, however; it is that it was via rebel missiles. All publications are regularly updating their websites and articles appear to be posted every few hours.
Stories involving fatalities and uncertainties appear to be very difficult to cover. Information is constantly changing and reporters need to be up to date on their beat at all times. Journalists need to be aware about bias and incorrect information and stray away from propaganda and conspiracy theories. With the development of new technologies, readers have become used to having all the information that they need at their fingertips. When it comes to international issues, especially ones that may be considered terrorism, readers and viewers become immersed and feel the need to stay informed at all times; this can be hard when there is limited information available. Stories such as the Malaysian plane are issues that are difficult to cover due to limited knowledge and the ongoing updates that are taking place.
Every news site there could possible be had a headline somewhere about the plane crash in Ukraine. Newspapers all over the world want to make it a point that the crash was a tragedy. With the tensions between Russia and the United States rising, you'd think the American headlines would include more finger-pointing at Vladimir Putin. In reality, it seems it has been some of the international newspapers who have taken it upon themselves to make assumptions.
The Sun, out of London, had a headline that read, "Putin's Missile." Right off the bat, they assumed that it had been the Russian leader who had made the call to shoot down the plane. While that is a valid accusation, it should not be placed on the front page of a newspaper before having confirmation.
There were also some inconsistencies between the newspapers. Some decided it would be more important to put the death toll in the headline. It seems like a great tactic to get viewers to read, but if the information is off, the readers can begin to doubt the credibility. While some papers gave the death toll of 295, De Telegraaf from the Netherlands, along with many others, claimed the number was 298. It's hard to deal with stories involving fatalities if number can rise in seconds. The information, however, should be given with 100% certainty.
The Washington Post, the New York Times, and BBC News have been covering the Malaysia Airlines incident. As I've went through the articles from the US and from the UK, I've noticed that the BBC has a more formal, just-the-facts tone whereas the Washington Post seems to use a sympathetic tone. The Washington Post also writes from the perspective of the victims/families more often. The BBC also updates the most frequently, posting articles every couple of hours.
In terms of interactive and multimedia in the articles, the BBC includes many more pictures than the Washington Post. Most of the news sites had videos and the New York Times even had a interactive showing the victims from the crash.
Because information keeps emerging and changing, it is especially difficult for news outlets to cover these types of ongoing stories. A couple of times, the papers have had to correct what was previously written. Previously stated as 295, the total number of passengers was changed to 298 to include the three infants. Journalists must also be careful with their wording and be careful not to make false accusations. I've seen many articles that are reluctant to outright accuse the rebels of launching the missile, instead choosing to say that Ukraine and the rebels both deny any part in the attack.
Because this such a tragic and international incident, many readers are eager to keep updated through the news. In order to prevent false information from going around, journalists need to double check their sources and information, especially since multiple contrasting information is on the media.
CNN and BBC have been covering Malaysian Airlines Flight 17 (MH17). Both news companies have several articles on the subject that are somewhat similar.
BBC has more data than CNN when it comes to the bodies of the passengers. BBC focuses on the remaining bodies while CNN focuses on the the missing ones. BBC states that about 196 bodies have been recovered and have been loaded on to a refrigerated railcar but do not know where they are taking the bodies. CNN is not very specific but asks, "who's moving bodies of MH17 crash?"
CNN stressed that several pieces of wreckage have been taken from the scene and is messing up the evidence.
Both CNN and BBC state that there is a blame game going on about who shot down the plane. BBC reports "the two sides in Ukraine's civil conflict have accused each other," and the separatist leader blamed the Ukrainian government itself. CNN received word from the "Ukrainian officials that 'terrorists' shot down the aircraft." CNN also says that the Ukrainian officials have blamed the pro-Russian separatist group for the 'crash.'
Both news websites have a good amount of multimedia but CNN has a little more. Most of the pictures are from the aftermath and of the victims.
The Malaysia plane crash in Ukraine has been covered by many news sources in the U.S. and around the world. This tragedy has not only shocked people, but raised questions on the cause of the crash. The Washington Post seems to talk about the significance of the crash, while BBC focuses on the facts of the situation.
One of the first facts that is given by BBC are the demographics of the people on board, while the Washington Post talks in depth about the bodies and their transportation, but gives the demographics later in the article. Although the Washington Post includes audio and visuals involving the crash, they do not have many graphs or maps of where and when the situation occurred, as BBC did. BBC also had the specific times and locations of the Malaysia plane.
Stories like this are hard to cover because they are on-going with the amount of information that is being received. Until all information has been recovered and there is a distinct conclusion to the situation, the story will continue to be difficult to report.
While reading both the Washington Post and BBC I have gathered similar information from both sources about the conflict in the Gaza Strip. However there are some slight differences between the two news sources.
Both news sources post media, such as pictures and videos. However while both sources post on the current events it seems the Washington Post writes their story more from the Israel side. They post more facts about Israel, while BBC posts facts about both sides. BBC seems to be more factual and seems to give more numbers when it comes to death and casualties then the Post.
While the Post updates its information much quicker than BBC it is understandable why the update times are different for each source. The topic of the Gaza Strip itself is a difficult one to cover, since the conflict is still ongoing. Since events are still happening, the news sources have to continue updating as efficiently as possible, as new situations continue to pop up.
This makes it harder to report and get the information out to the public, however both news sites, seem to be doing an efficient job at reporting the most current and important news on the topic.
Websites such as CNN and The New York Times discuss what happened with the Malaysian Airlines incident. They have posted pictures of the victims along with their bios. Some detail has been given.
Unlike CNN and The New York Times, BBC doesn't only give details about the crash and it's victims. It gives suggestions about how incidents like these can be prevented in the future. BBC also gives more facts about the incident.
This story is particularly hard to cover because this is the second time this same incident has occurred. Also many news sites and stations are competing with each other to get the most details and be the most accurate about the situation. BBC I think is the most accurate because the accident happened over seas so they are more aware of what's going on in their location.
Recently, news about yet another Malaysian Airlines plane has been exploding over the web. News stations such as The Washington Post and BBC have been uploading articles that describe the plane crash in Ukraine. Although The Washington Post and BBC are reporting the same news, they differ in the way they present it.
BBC is constantly updating the news whereas The Washington Post does so frequently, but not as efficiently as BBC. This may be due to the fact that BBC is a worldwide news station while The Washington Post is a local one.
With the wave of incoming news, certain facts are still unknown such as the amount of victims on the plane. Both news stations upload photos and videos but BBC seems to take a neutral approach while The Washington Post seems more biased.
The Malaysia Airlines crash story is becoming increasingly popular which means a greater number of viewers. News must be uploaded quickly in order to satisfy the demand for new information. The faster the news is posted, however, the more mistakes are made. The amount of victims of the crash is fluctuating on both sources. Furthermore, the plane crash still remains a mystery in many aspects as new facts are being discovered frequently. This makes the story particularly hard to cover.
The Washington Post has been mostly staying up to date with the crisis in Gaza and spent only a day or so covering the Malaysian plane. When the event first too place it was updates one after another as the main story but as the weekend went on the bombings in Pakastain continued to take over as the leading story.
However CNN has been all over the Malaysian plane incident like white on rice, practically sending updates every hour. Even sending updates as to when the President would speak on the situation. Alonng with CNN the New York Times have also been all over the Malaysian airline situation but not giving nearly as much details. The NY times, like the post reverted back to the Gaza crisis. Almost every news source also headlined that today was the worst day of the Gaza conflict.
The post and the NY times both are very detailed in the stories regarding gaza and the malaysian airline incident. As far as BBC goes, the are covering both stories as headliners and are not going as indepth as the other two sources.
All new sources are in deep competition to retrieve the correct informatio the fastest in order to be the first source to break the news. incorrect information is not published as much but ocassionally missunderstandings or the wrong facts can cause a large problem so although a source may no be first they may be right.
The Malaysian Airlines jet crash has been covered constantly by various news sources. CNN and BBC have both covered the crash extensively. CNN seems to cover the crash from a more personable perspective and BBC seems more factual.
CNN and BBC include pictures and videos allowing readers to visualize emotions and the actual crash. I noticed that both sites included maps in articles about the crash so readers could see where it occurred. Both sites talk about the families of the victims and have whole pages dedicated to information about the crash.
CNN has constantly updated more than BBC.
The story is difficult to cover because updates constantly surface. It is also difficult to cover due to all news sources trying to flesh out updates on the story quicker than the competition. This causes accuracy to not be the primary focus and some updates of the crash may be skewed.
I'm discussing the Malaysian plane crash and having the CNN app it's constantly giving new updates about what is happening including statements from President Obama , pictures and names of the victims that were involved and theories as to why this happened .
BBC is coming from a neutral standpoint so it really does give you the best explanation of events and their take on since it covers news about the world in general. It doesn't update you as much as newspapers like the Washington Post or New York Times . Those newspapers cover the most minute details unlike BBC that gives you the the jist of what occurred.
Constantly news shows have to update you on the newest theories and statements being made. It's difficult to report because everyday there is something new to tell or to explain. Also there is also new theories about why the crash occurred. I wouldn't call it mistakes being made in the story, it's just new theories from different perspectives , new leads that may suggest something else happen that people didn't notice before. Some might say it's a terrorist attack others may so it was the a malfunction on the plane. It depends on who your discussing it with and the knowledge that they have on the subject.
Over the past couple of weeks, the conflict between Israel and Gaza has intensified, and therefore so has the news coverage of the conflict. All major news sites have stories devoted to the topic, including the local Washington Post, and the international news site, BBC News. Many similarities and some differences can be noted by reading and comparing articles from both sites.
Of course, facts are facts, so both news outlets report virtually the same thing. Aside from the exact numbers being a little different both papers are reporting the death of upwards of 87 Gazans and 13 Israelis since Saturday night. The discrepancy in the death toll likely comes from one side claiming to have killed people on the other side without the other side confirming the deaths. The discrepancy could also be due to the BBC article being updated later than the Washington Post article. The BBC article was last updated at 6:29 p.m. while the Washington Post article was last updated at 4:38 p.m. While the sites differ on the number of Gazans killed, both papers hold that 13 Israeli’s died on Sunday, bringing the total number of Israeli deaths to 18.
Each website appears to update their articles with new reports very frequently. This is not surprising as the story being covered is developing as updates are being sent back to the states. Both articles are accompanied by videos and photos from the area. The story is difficult to cover because it is a rapidly developing situation. While updates are being published to the site, something else happens that needs to be reported. In addition to the fluidity of the situation, both sides of the conflict are constantly pumping out propaganda to gain support from people around the world.
The number of Gazan women and children killed is a hot topic in the news as well as that number keeps climbing. While it is unacceptable for women and children to be slain in such a conflict, I have not read a single article that mentions that Gazans do not care who the rockets they fire at Israel hurt or kill, as long as they hurt and kill Israelis. In fact, if it wasn’t for Israel’s government protecting its people with its Iron Dome anti-missile system, many Israeli women and children would be killed as well. Before Israel attacked, they dropped warnings from the sky telling civilians to evacuate the area or they would be putting their lives at risk. Gazans provide no such warning as they continue to launch rocket after rocket into Israel. Despite the omission of that fact, the coverage of the conflict has been fair to both sides.
Looking at two different sites, washingtonpost.com (from the U.S.) and bbc.com (an overseas site), I noticed right away that BBC had a lot more information than the Washington Post. BBC had an area dedicated to information on the Malaysian Airlines Crash, and in that area had more than one story posted. Also, the stories in that area focused on more than one topic involving the Malaysian Airlines crash. For example, bbc.com has multiple stories on topics such as the victims of the crash, the previous history of other passenger planes shot down, where it's safe to fly, and what flight recorders could reveal when examined by accident investigators. In contrast, the Washington Post only had one story up recently, entitled "In Flight 17 crash aftermath, an agonizing wait for families seeking proper burial." Moreover, it was a lot easier to find information on the Malaysian Airlines crash on BCC's website than it was on the Washington Post's website.
BBC is a lot more detailed in their stories, focusing more on intricate details of the case in their stories. BBC had maps and diagrams in their stories while the Washington Post did not. Also, BBC has a gallery of pictures of the crash site, unlike the Washington Post.
However, I did notice that both sites had videos attached to their stories. Both sites displayed the date the story was posted and the most recent time it was updated. The Washington Post and BBC also both had accurate information and no grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors were detected.
The conflict surrounding Israel and Gaza is dominating news sources around the world, from American sources such as CNN and the New York Times to English sources like BBC and the Telegraph. Reports from these news sources are all very detailed and stay up to date on the crisis in Gaza. The news sources are very similar in how they deliver facts and updates about the ongoing troubles.
There is one difference I noticed right away when visiting BBC and the Telegraph's sites; more pictures. "Gaza shelling by Israel leads to deadliest day of conflict" is an article on BBC detailing the high death toll and deadly conditions currently in Gaza. This article contained 5 powerful pictures and an attachment of the broadcast report. "Israeli envoy: There is no kidnapped soldier" is a CNN article that released an update about earlier reports of an Israeli soldier being kidnapped, these were deemed untrue. In this article there is only an attachment of the broadcast report. The New York Times' articles covering the conflict barely contain any photographs at all.
The BBC and Telegraph may understand the power of photographs more than our news sources here in the U.S., or CNN and the Times are more focused on getting the story out there and don't believe the photographs are a necessary component to do so. This being said, I do think that Americans news sources should add more photographs, because they make a tragedy that is a world away seem much closer.
Post a Comment