The New York Times and Wall Street Journal are some of the more prominent news outlets. They supply a variety of quality news and feature high quality photos. Perhaps it’s just me, but I find these news sites do be one of the few reliable sites out there.
Lately the Middle East, more specifically Egypt, has been in the news a great deal. The New York Times and the Wall Street Journal covered current protests in Egypt, sharing a similar cover this week. The covers share the same picture- a close up on a few wounded protesters in Cairo, Egypt. The title for New York Times is, “New Bloodshed in Egypt as Islamists Defy Threat of Force.” Wall Street Journal’s title is, “Deadly Violence Returns to Egypt Streets.” However the original title is, “Protests Erupt in Egypt with More than 30 Killed in Rames Square.” Both of the articles are similar- they share the same location, event, facts, and subject matter. However, there are certain aspects and details added in each article which separates the two.
The introduction of the NY Times states, “CAIRO — Dozens of people were reportedly killed in renewed clashes on Friday as thousands of followers of the embattled Muslim Brotherhood took to the streets of Cairo and other cities, facing police officers authorized to use lethal force if threatened.” The introduction serves it purpose. It certainly keeps me guessing. I want to know more about-well-the deaths. Call it a “morbid fascination,” but I’m interested in finding out how and why these people died. The introduction for the WSJ states, “CAIRO—Demonstrations erupted outside mosques in Cairo and other cities across Egypt on Friday, with thousands of Muslim Brotherhood members expressing rage against the military-backed government and the bloody crackdown earlier in the week.” The introduction provides a helpful link and plenty of information. However, it provides too much information and it fails to mention that there were any casualties.
Throughout the NY Times article there are ‘explosive’ word usage such as ‘blows, armored, and clash.’ I’m usually not fond of sensationalizing or, what I call, dressing up an article, however; I think the word usage is necessary in order to demonstrate the violence and chaos erupting overseas. More than often, people dismiss events partaking in different countries and, instead, pay attention to the events occurring in their own country or even state. Events from other countries are just important to us because our country is or will be involved with there’s, one or way another. For instance the fall of one country can lead to the fall of another simply by lack of resources.
According to the WSJ article, “State television reported that 42 people had died while the Muslim brotherhood reported that at least 80 people died between security and protesters.” This is when a journalist role to achieve the truth comes in handy. Even though the state could very well be correct, it’s important to expose both sides. Besides, the Egyptian government has restricted media content before; who’s to say they didn’t do it again. Also I kept waiting to hear what exactly provoked police retaliation. Did the police immediately fire back, causing several causalities, or did a fire or gun shots break out, forcing the police to fire back?
The WSJ article paints the scene before, during, and after the protest. The article covers several sides of the story- the government, the volunteer nurses, Muslim brotherhood, and other groups of protesters. However, parts of this article could have either been cut or turned into a separate article.