This morning's New York Times had two front-page stories on Barack Obama's inauguration speech, each with a different angle.
One story was labeled "Analysis." The other story had no label, apparently because it was a factual report. Can you tell the difference by reading the lead?
Story 1:
"WASHINGTON — Barack Hussein Obama was sworn in as the 44th president of the United States on Tuesday and promised to “begin again the work of remaking America” on a day of celebration that climaxed a once-inconceivable journey for the man and his country."
Story 2:
"WASHINGTON — Barack Obama’s Inaugural Address on Tuesday was a stark repudiation of the era of George W. Bush and the ideological certainties that surrounded it, wrapped in his pledge to drive the United States into “a new age” by reclaiming the values of an older one. "
What are the differences between these two leads? Was the analysis label necessary? You can post your responses as comments, or add your own, separate post to the blog.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
4 comments:
In Prof. Fink's class we've been talking about how newspapers have to prove their worth vs things like TV and online news sources, not to mention social networking sites that mean you don't have to major in PR to know how to reach people. The difference will come, according to him, with things like this analysis... when educated journalists use their knowledge to delve deeper into an issue than just pointing out facts.
While both of the leads of these news stories repeat aspects of the oath taken by Obama, they approach his inauguration differently which is evident from the "analysis" story. The first simply states the facts of what occurred on Jan. 20, but the second can be viewed as an analytical article when the writer maintained that Obama's inauguration was a "repudiation of the era of George W. Bush." Straight news states the facts while analysis digs deeper into the meaning of the election and could possibly offer more of an opinion to accompany the facts.
I am on the fence about whether or not the "analysis" label was necessary. On one hand, I think it is clear from the wording of the second lead that it is analytical rather than a regurgitation of the facts. However, I wonder if the average American would distinguish between fact and analysis? Or would they simply trust that this article has no basis in opinion because it is not located on the editorial page?
In order to keeps its credibility, a newspaper often has to use a label for news analysis stories. The first story includes the events of the day alone while the second interprets Obama's speech. With this interpretation, the label becomes necessary because the story is presuming to know things that could be construed differently by someone else. That is not to say that analysis should not be a part of newspapers. I like having the analysis right next to the story so that I can read what someone more knowledgeable than I am can tell me the implications or meanings behind what is happening. I just think that the label is necessary.
Post a Comment