New York Times and Financial Times Differences of Informing - Research Paper Example

Diversity and Inclusion in Organizations Abstract The purpose of news reporting is to filter out the reporter’s own sentiments which may unjustly color the report and mislead the readers. However, as Merrill’s paradox states, journalists desiring to give an honest and full account cannot detach themselves from their stories, and therefore subjectivity is essential to objective reporting. Two news stories on a recent event of significance to the financial world – the refusal of Germany to approve of a common Euro bond – exhibit such a subjectivity which is the result of social conditioning. Even in straightforward news reporting, evidence of socially-oriented views are able to filter through in news articles which are supposed to be objective accounts of a non-cultural issue. In this assessment, the divergence in the articles may be less accounted for by cultural differences, and more in line with differences in vantage point with respect to the issue at bar. Assignment No. 3 Analyzing Reports on a Current Business Related Event: Germany’s Refusal to Share the EU Debt Burden Introduction The tenets of journalism require objective reporting, which is defined as: balance and even-handedness in presenting sides of an issue; accuracy and realism; separating facts from opinion; minimizing the influence of writer’s own attitude or opinion; and avoiding slant, rancor or devious purposes (Boyer, 1981, cited in Harcup, 2009: 83). Evidently, the purpose of news reporting is to filter out the reporter’s own sentiments which may unjustly color the report and mislead the readers. However, as Merrill’s paradox states, journalists desiring to give an honest and full account cannot detach themselves from their stories, and therefore subjectivity is essential to objective reporting (Russell, 2006: 40). This appears to ring true in the following two news stories on a single event, namely the recent refusal of Germany to share the other EU countries’ debt burdens. Angela Merkel, German chancellor, expressed Germany’s refused to back proposed Eurozone bonds, an event which has triggered strong controversy in both sides of the Atlantic. The two stories, one in the New York Times (U.S.) and the other from the Financial Times (U.K.) reported on the prospects of the bonds as a solution to the EU’s unfolding financial crisis. While the apparent purpose of both articles is to inform on the facts of the event, they however inadvertently express the underlying sentiments of the writer and, apparently, the social perspectives which had given rise to them. In the choice of articles, opinion columns were avoided, since opinions of all kinds exist in all cultures. News stories were chosen because despite attempts of the writer to remain objective, subjective elements subtly filter through which betray deep-seated social conditioning. The American (NYT) v the European (FT) writing styles. Evident in between the articles is a divergence of writing style. The New York Times article (denoted as NYT) adopted a more abrasive, combative writing style while that of the Financial Times (FT) was more subdued, less confrontational. Strong words were used throughout the article, such as in part. 1 (“stuck to her guns”), Mr. Monti’s “fight with Germany” (par. 24) and par. 22 (“In his pointed comments…”), the latter referring to Italy’s Mr. Monti’s comment about the president of the German central bank. NYT views the problem of common bonds as an external one, to it as well as to Germany, which appears to be justified in demanding a measure of control in exchange for sharing liability (“Control and liability must not be disproportionate to one another”, par. 2), which FT stresses that the problem is already systemic and threatens the whole of the Eurozone, Germany included, which should justify the debt-sharing (pars. 7-9). Fighting words v words of reproach, underdog v collective power Pursuant to the writing style, NYT couches its perspective in fighting words: “Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany stuck to her guns Wednesday” (par. 2), and Mr. Monti’s “fight with Germany” (par. 24). On the other hand, FT makes use of words of reproach: “Germany refused to share the debt burden…ignoring two of the most influential international economic bodies…” (par. 1). The American article also appears to create a parallel of the protagonists as underdog against the collective power, a figurative David (referring to Merkel) versus Goliath (the rest of the EU leaders). For instance, NYT refers to Ms. Merkel and the “unpopularity of her position” as “facing a chorus of complaint from other EU leaders, themselves under domestic political pressure…” (par. 4). Implicit coloring of issues and allies or opponents There is a polarity in the contextualization of issues as depicted by the two articles. NYT highlights the political pressures faced by EU leaders as their motivation for the clamor for Germany to approve of the Eurozone bonds (par. 4). On the other hand, FT emphasizes that the possible adverse effects on Germany is but the cost of establishing a greater good, which is the stability of EU’s economy (par. 3). FT also relegates less significance to the eventual triumph of Ms. Merkel in the summit, describing it as “producing more smoke than fire” (par. 11). Because the issues are so construed, the parties are also colorfully depicted as either allies or opponents. NYT states that “…Ms Merkel argued [her case], to applause from across the political spectrum…” (par. 9). On the other hand, her opponents are the other EU political leaders facing domestic pressures; proponents of the common euro bond including Mr. Rajoy of Spain (par. 21) and Mr. Monti of Italy (pars. 24-25) are mentioned as acting under the impulse of domestic pressures, rather than in pursuit of a legitimate interest involving the entire Eurozone. In contrast, the FT article described Germany’s refusal as stubborn and myopic, “…ignoring two of the most influential international economic bodies…” namely the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development or OECD, and the International Monetary Fund or IMF (par. 2). Finally, it may be observed that the article of the NYT tended to completely overlook the important facts while drawing attention to minor irritants. This refers to significant facts mentioned in the FT article which are totally ignored by the NYT article. (N.B. The FT article antedates NYT by a little over a month, therefore matters known when the FT was written should have been addressed by a balanced NYT account.) The NYT story, although chronologically written later than the FT article, fails to mention the IMF which called for “fiscal liability sharing” (par. 9) and the OECD which strongly recommended the adoption of the euro bonds (par. 8). Furthermore, Mr. Monti’s largely personal comments were characterized in par. 22 as indicative of “tensions” between the two countries, elevating an incidental matter to the importance of international policy. Conclusion Americans are often differentiated from their “cultural predecessors”, the Europeans, as being more liberal, less conventional, and more irreverent, although this is a largely unfounded misconception (Epitropoulos & Roudometof, 1998). This is in fact contested by the observation that Europeans are more liberal in the matter of drug use (Maciamo, n.d.) and commoditized sex, in some areas at least. But this digresses from the point that fixation on stereotypes is served by perceived clashes in perception. In this case, the simple truth is that the New York article is written from the perspective of an outsider, while that of the Financial Times, a London periodical, is written from that of an insider. Thus, the latter is perceptive of the more profound implications of the event, while the outsider’s view, less mindful of the deeper issues, would tend to view the event with stronger and bolder convictions. References Castle, S. (2012) “Merkel Refuses to Yield on Even of Summit Meeting.” The New York Times. 27 June 2012. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/28/business/global/daily-euro-zone-watch.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&ref=global Epitropoulos, M-F G. & Roudometof, V. (1998) American Culture in Europe: Interdisciplinary Perspectives. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers, an imprint of Greenwood Publishing Group Giles, C; Spiegel, P; & Peel, Q. (2012) “EU Economy: Germany rules out common euro bonds.” Financial Times, 22 May 2012. Retrieved from http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/5abc14ba-a42e-11e1-a701-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1z34tHICN Harcup, T. (2009) Journalism: Principles and Practice, 2nd edition. London: SAGE Publications Ltd. Maciamo (n.d.) “What differentiates Europeans from Americans.” Eupedia. Retrieved from http://www.eupedia.com/europe/cultural_differences_europe_usa.shtml Russell, N. (2006) Morals and the Media: Ethics in Canadian Journalism, 2nd edition. Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia Press. Read More