Content Analysis: CNN vs. Aljazeera - Case Study Example

Content Analysis: CNN vs. Aljazeera The media has a power to set the agenda of the public. As (Soroka, 2002)says, even though one media outlet may not be able to set the public agenda, the concerted effort of several media outlets can set the agenda of the public. It is also good to note that the bigger the media outlet, the more it is to be able to set the public agenda. Big media houses that have more visibility in the world also have the power to set the agenda for the public single handedly. The issue of agenda setting can be seen in that the way two major outlets report issues can be very different. Even within the same country such as in the USA the way reporting is done depends on the political orientation of the media houses. A bigger rift between the agenda set by two media houses can be seen between two media houses that belong to two different geopolitical regions. A good example is the differences in the way CNN, a western media powerhouse and Aljazeera, an oriental media power house, report their political news. A good example with regard to how these two houses report the events going on in the Middle East, especially in Syria today. The reporting is very different and each covers the stories from different perspectives. The way these two media outlets have been reporting the issue the civil wars in the Middle East, in Syria to be specific is very different. Aljazeera for instance seem to be sympathetic with the militia groups which they call prefer to cal ISIS or ISIL while the western media prefer to call the Islamic state. While the English version of Aljazeera tries to be as neural as possible, it has also shown a different perspective in the way they report. CNN has portrayed the ISIS as an evil terrorist group that is a threat to the west while Aljazeera, albeit not in an explicit way, has been less harsh on their description of the Islamic state. Differences in reporting can be seen in reports about world political events. For instance Aljazeera (2015) reported that Muslims were being ethnically cleansed from the society in Central African Republic. This is the kind of reporting that would least likely appear in CNN’s editorial pages. The differences in reporting between Aljazeera and CNN can be seen in the reporting about the Yemen situation. In this particular situation, Aljazeera (2015) reported about Yemen leader being under siege while in CNN reporters Levs, Walsh, and Spark (2015) reported that the rebels were actually protecting the Yemenis president. A better controversy can be seen in the way the two reported about the Charlie Hebdo issue in France. Both of these media outlets reported differently, with each showing their allegiance to whichever side they were supporting. For instance Aljazeera English (2015) reported on how the French government has responded by arresting by a comedian who made comedic remarks that seemed to support the attackers while the satirical magazine has increased sales without restraint while it did nothing to restrain the increasing sales of the magazine that satirized Islam. In this report, the reader is left without any doubt on which side the Aljazeera is on. On the other hand CNN’s Levs (2015) reported on how the many people have been killed in protests against the protests against the Hebdo issue. Again, here, the article almost explicitly shows no neutrality and shows that the authors and the editors were on which side. The same CNN reported on another article about the issue of Charlie Hebdo. In this article, CNN also reported in support of the Hebdo magazine and in fact replicated an editorial in the Charlie Hebdo magazine, with permission from the magazine. The article is written by Gérard Biard (2015) who is Charlie Hebdo Editor-in-Chief and was featured on CNN online pages. The above differences in reporting show how media houses can be partial in their reporting and how editorial material can be either biased or one-sided. The CNN Way The kind of picture that is depicted in the CNN of the ISIS is a picture of a dangerous terrorist group. This has continued to be so even though there have not been any attacks to any western state by the group. Although the groups have executed a number of American and westerners who they have captured in their group, there is no any evidence that is clear that the groups are a risk factor for western nations such as USA. Yet, despite this, the CNN coverage of the ISIS has been a major one, giving the stories about the ISIS more airtime on their digital media as well as more space on their online media. This can be seen to set the agenda as more people now look at anything from the west as a terrorist outfit, probably the reason why the American audience has shied away from the American Aljazeera which was launched sometimes back. Although the nature or reason for conflict has not been reported well in the CNN, the activities of the groups have largely been reported. Many Americans today are able to come to a situation where they are able to know about the dangers (perceived or otherwise) that the groups poses to the western world. But most of CNN audience may not even know what the conflict in Syria is all about. This can be seen as a way for setting the agenda about the people and the intention may be to not only keep the American public wary about the civil conflict on the Middle East, but to keep them glued to the screens because the news about security, especially security issues related to the terrorist groups in the Middle East are important to so many Americans. The security issues related to the Middle East are important to American especially since the 9/11 incident. As a result, the media houses know that the best way to keep their audiences glued to the screen is by serving them with such news (Boydstun, 2013). Because the major terrorist groups such as the Al Qaeda have waned especially due to the presence of western military focus in this area. The Aljazeera This media outlet reports widely on the issue of the ISIS and has been seen to be a major source of any news related to the militia group. Their reporting is different from the western media such as CNN. While they don’t show explicit sympathy in their reporting, their reporting has been neutral with regard to what they think about the role of ISIS in causing chaos in Syria. These differences in the way these two sides of the mass media reports about global issues can also be seen in the way they reported other issue happening in the Muslim world. A good example is the civilian led coup in Libya and Egypt. While the western media such as CNN reported the issues from a western point of view, regarding these leaders such as Muammar Gaddafi and Al Bashir as rogue leaders, the Aljazeera reported the issues form a different point of view. It is to be noted that these two media houses have two different sets of audience and he news they serve have to match the kind of audience that they serve. For instance, Aljazeera, even the English version is mainly watched in the Middle East and Africa while CNN is mainly watched in the west. As a result, the kinds of news they serve to their audiences are different have to be different. As Wanta (1997) argues, these media houses are profit geated and so they have to be able to know what sells. In this regard, it can be said that these news houses only set the agenda as a way to create demand for their news, as opposed to just be able to inform. What is Newsworthy? Media houses do not report based on what they think is newsworthy, but based on what they think will drive viewership. Vested interests are also a part of the reason these media outlets decide which kinds of news they are going to give to their audiences. This can also be seen in their report issues such as the healthiness of the coca cola products. Aljazeera has for instance been known to report without holding back in how coca cola products affect the health of drinkers especially with regard to obesity as caused by the excessive sugar in their products. However, CNN has shied away from this issue and continue to report on other issues. A closer look at these two media houses therefore indicates that the two media houses are mainly concerned with portraying their own home countries in better light as and attacking the other countries. These differences in interest have been a major determinant in not only the kind of news that these media outlets give to their audiences but also the perspective they choose to use when reporting anything (Boydstun, 2013). Bibliography Aljazeera English. (2015, January 18). Yasmina Khadra: A battle of extremes. Retrieved January 21, 2015, from Aljazeera English: http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/talktojazeera/2015/01/yasmina-khadra-battle-extremes-2015117101428817312.html Aljazeera. (2015, January 13). UN: Muslims ethnically cleansed in CAR. Retrieved January 21, 2015, from Aljazeera: http://www.aljazeera.com/news/africa/2015/01/un-muslims-ethnically-cleansed-car-2015196546788288.html Aljazeera. (2015, January 21). Yemen Houthis set demands amid standoff. Retrieved January 21, 2015, from Aljazeera News: http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2015/01/yemen-houthis-sanaa-201512191137352791.html Boydstun, A. (2013). Making the News: Politics, the Media, and Agenda Setting. Detriot, CH: University of Chicago Press. Boydstun, A. (2013). Making the News: Politics, the Media, and Agenda Setting. Chicago, CH: University of Chicago Press. Gérard Biard, Charlie Hebdo Editor-in-Chief. (2015, January 15). Charlie Hebdo editorial: Will there continue to be yes, but?. Retrieved January 21, 2015, from CNN International : http://edition.cnn.com/2015/01/14/opinion/charlie-hebdo-editorial-gerard-biard/ Levs, J. (2015, January 21). 10 killed, churches torched in protests over Charlie Hebdo. Retrieved January 21, 2015, from CNN International: http://edition.cnn.com/2015/01/20/world/charlie-hebdo-violence/ Levs, J., Walsh, J., & Spark, L. (2015, January 21). Houthi rebels stand guard outside Yemens presidential palace. Retrieved January 21, 2015, from CNN International : http://edition.cnn.com/2015/01/21/world/yemen-violence/index.html Soroka, S. (2002). Agenda-setting Dynamics in Canada. Vancouver, CN: UBC Press. Wanta, W. (1997). The Public and the National Agenda: How People Learn about Important Issues. New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Read More