As you can see, the above advertisment is talking about how if you eat too much, you may get diabetes, and eventually lose a limb. It includes a peson who's leg was amputated sitting there. There's just one issue. The actor whose picture was used for the ad isn't missing any limbs, and was apparently shocked to find out that he was altered to be used like this as he's worried it may harm his ability to get acting jobs later as people will think (or expect) him to be missing a limb.
A spokesperson for the New York City health department said, 'This issue isn't about one actor but rather the 700,000 New Yorkers who struggle with diabetes, which kills 1,700 people a year and causes amputations in another 3,000. Advertising to warn the public about health concerns saves lives, and we will continue our efforts to warn New Yorkers about diabetes.'
Still I think that they could've found one of the, uh, 3,000 people who'd had a limb amputated to be the model for the picture. While this is pretty bad, at least it isn't as bad as UGG's attempts to make UGGS manly (which aren't working). I will not do myself the discredit of featuring the commercials, or athlete involved here, simply becuase I don't like him that much. Which teaches two lessons:
People just don't like certain things
Don't pick a poster boy who's hated by about as many to more people than like him.
Today during our dicussion in class on 1984's Newspeak, and if language can really define what people think, I got to thinking on one of my various vaugely relevant tangents about something that I'd read about a month or two ago. Except that this vauge tangent was actually somewhat useful, and led to an interesting conclusion. Here's I'd thrown in an analogy about throwing a red flag, but none of you would get what I actually meant, so I'll just get on with it.
First, I discovered that there if a word for what 'truthiness' and 'wikiality' are. They're neologisms. A neologism, according to dictionary.com, is 'a new word, usage, or phrase'. Which was just a somewhat interesting thing that I stumbled upon, but not what I'd been looking for.
A month or so, I'd gone to dictionary.com looking for something, and since I have the attention span of a much younger child, got sidetracked by one of their picutre headline things. This specific one was about the word which essentially defines made up languages that babies, normally twins, will use to talk to each other, that nobody else can understand. Turns out that the word for this, which I was able to, uh, rediscover, is idioglossia. Idioglossia is specifically, 'a private form of speech invented by one child or by children who are in close contact, as twins'. It comes from a Greek word meaning 'of distinct or perculiar tounge'. The Ancient Greeks were very funny. They at one point decided that the language of anyone who didn't speak Greek could be summarized as saying 'bar bar bar bar' really fast, with different tones. So if you didn't speak Greek, you were an uncivilized Bar-bar. Which is where the word barbarian comes from. But that's not really the point here, more of just to well, give background of dumb ways words can be made up. Along with my really random thought process, since I went through all of this while we were doing the group questions in class today.
The fact that a word has been made to define made up languages by babies leads to some intersting propositions. If langages made up by babies can be defined as idioglossia, then that means that babies have made up an intelligible language, with systems and definitions, however rudimentary, that is still a language. A language entirly based on their babyish whims, feelings, and what babies feel and want to get across. Which means that people can make up languages with systems and definitions on their own. Thus, theoretically, it's impossible to truly limit people thoughts by limiting language, as people will gradually make up their own term to refer to what it is that they feel, and communicate to other people gradually what their meaning is. Or that babies are a lot smarter than us.
Thus, the entire discourse which we had is sort of irrelevant. For what people think to be limited, they have to not only be hemmed in by the language they speak (as they can always create new tools within a language) but also by the culture surrounding them. If the culture surrounding them imposes certain ideals and values upon them, they'll repress, or decide not to share any ideas that they come up with which they've been taught could be described as subversive or illegal. Newspeak doesn't only limit what can be thought, but it tells you and others around you what is illegal to think, and in an atmosphere that if you hear your mom say something that you've been told is wrong or toes the boundries, you'll report it to the authorities. Your mom knowing this, and not wanting to be arrested, will keep any such ideas to herself, swallow them, or just not express them.
So let us establish that though humans can create language, once they turn off their creation stage and let everything be defined by others for them, then the language can limit what they perceive in certain areas to an extent. I'm not going to go through this whole thing and bore you, but the general gist is, if you have a lot of words to define similar things with slight differences, you'll notice the slight differences in things presented to you one by one. If you speak a language that doesn't, you'll only percieve them when all the things are presented to you at the same time.
In summary, I just presented a bunch of things, said one thing, then proceeded to present more things that seem to contradict me. End result or point of this exercise you ask.
Ask me in person, I communicate better that way.
I just wanted to say, I'm sorry I didn't tell a lotta people that I'm leaving (including you Ms Dellapa!). 1.Ms McGinley said she'd tell everyone herself & 2.I have mentioned I'm a pessimist- I just assumed I wouldn't get a reaction :P
Anyway, I knew from the beginning that I'd be leaving but I wasn't a 100% sure. This was why I was all quiet & all that. I didn't want to get too close to people & then just leave cause it would make me (and others maybe?) very sad. Also, a new high school & all that, y'all know how hard that is. In reality, I'm like Oswin; loud, annoying, randomly singing- you get my drift. (No offence Oswin :) I'm sure it's your pleasure to be compared with me).
I'm sorry I didn't get to socialise too much or just be myself around everyone but I have learnt a lot & hopefully it will help me in the future (both educationally & socially). Even though I wasn't particularly close with a lot of you guys, most of you have inspired me (at least a little, but it's the little little things that make up a person right? Okay haha that was cheesy :P but I mean it (A) ).
Finally, good luck with IB! I really mean that. And please keep in touch :) If I have y'all on facebook/twitter/skype, I will try saying hello at least once every month whether y'all like it or not (A) If not, please add me:
Facebook: Sara Shiraz
Twitter: LH_SaraShiraz
Skype: sara.shiraz911
I talk too much BYE! I probably won't return to Doha so I might come in, spend a day sometime next week :)
1)Compare the two articles. How is coverage similar? What differences do you notice?
The topic of both articles is about how things are going in Egypt especially with January 25th right around the corner. We have all witnessed history being made during this revolution and its first anniversary is shortly approaching. Both articles discuss a miniature timeline on the events that have go on since and how the Military being in power has shown a negative effect amongst the Egyptian people. Each article also focuses how this day will be remembered and how the youth movement toppled down President Hosni Mubarak and his regime. One the main differences between these articles is definitely the point of view that is being shown. To start with, The Peninsula gave a very positive headline which was “Egypt to celebrate revolution the toppled Mubark” where as The Washington Post gave a more negative headline, “Egypt’s youth movement loses luster”. The Peninsula started off by giving information on how the Egyptian people and government will celebrate and how far they’ve come and then begins to discuss the Military’s attempt to remain its grip on power. Whereas The Washington Post immediately jumps into how the Military is ruling in such an aggressive manner and how the people are suffering under their rule. The difference is quite clear but each article decides to focus on what they think is worthy of telling their readers.
2)Considering the type of bias and reasons for bias we’ve discussed, how do you account for the similarities and differences between the articles?
Since The Peninsula is a Qatari based newspaper its views will definitely follow those of the government and it will publish something that the readers will want to read. So by using the informational bias technique of dramatizing they are showing how successful the revolution was but then showing what is being done about the current situation. On the other hand The Washington Post clearly uses the Authority-disorder technique of informational bias due to the continuous stressing on how the military are the bad guys and the people are the good guys. This could be because of the US’s strong opinion on democracy and determination on having Egypt as a democratic Arab state. Fragmentation is shown in both articles as The Peninsula doesn’t really go into detail and has a rather short and easy to read article, whereas The Washington Post has a much longer article really focusing on the ruling of the Military.
1. The article "Gen Pervez Musharraf 'To Return to Pakistan'" only followed a couple of the types of informational bias. The first was dramatization. In the past, Musharraf was accused of assassinating former PM Benazir Bhutto and then leaving the country. In spite of being warned about the risks of coming back to Pakistan he has announced that he will be returning to participate in parliamentary elections. “I’ve been threatened and warned but I’m not one of those who gets scared or backs down” he told supporters. His return was very shocking news and the majority of the article only focused on that aspect. Any other article could have also mentioned his past wrongdoings or discussed the consequences of his actions whereas this one stayed on topic and focused on the actual issue. Also, the article had some personalization. It mentioned that one of Musharraf’s only chances of being accepted back into Pakistan would be through the help of his supporters who are to stand by his side and welcome him back into the country “Addressing a rally by video link from Dubai, he asked his supporters to prepare for elections.”
2. The types of informational biases that were included did have an impact on how we perceived the article and the text. At first, we only thought of Musharraf as a murder for killing Benazir Bhutto and a coward for leaving the country and his job. However, after reading the article our opinions slightly differed since he seemed more determined and powerful than ever. This is mostly noticeable when he said, "I've fought wars. I'll come to Pakistan." He doesn't seem to be concerned about the consequences of his return. When we first read the article we thought that it was just defending Musharraf and that doing so would be useless since we presumed that most of the people would not welcome him back with open arms. However, towards the end we were able to see that Musharraf actually had supporters (he was relying on them) and so we reconsidered his innocence and thought that he might have been judged too quickly or unfairly. So, through dramatization we were able to notice how serious Musharraf was about returning and that his determination might actually mean that he was innocent. Then, through personalization we could see that he might have a chance at becoming popular once again due to his supporters who will be awaiting his arrival.
3. The main aim of news agencies is of course to inform the people about what is occurring around them. At the same time they need people to remain engaged with the stories and to always be discussing them. However, how will they do so if they are not controversial? There are many people who probably do not want Musharraf to return to Pakistan and after reading this story they were certainly angered by the news. This story made it into the print because of the importance of the topic to the people of Pakistan but also because it is controversial. Throughout the article there are quotes where Musharraf talks about his supporters but there was not much about the people against him. If the article had discussed both sides in detail, it would not be have been as interesting or powerful. So, those parameters made the story more one-sided and interesting, and might have caused conflict within the country. However, this is what the news wants because only then will people want to know more. Therefore, by having news and controversy and only focusing on one side of the issue, people will be eager to find out more about the topic in the future.
Personalization is where most stories focus on individuals rather than institutions, and emphasize human-interest angles and emotional impact over and often at the expense of broader social contexts and political perspectives.
In short, the story would be written more on a personal level. The article that we had picked on the situation revolving Mubarak included some personalization but not all of it. The personalization in the article mostly comes from different quotes in which people had said revolving around the issue. It was mostly Mubarak who was the center of attention in the article, and what he thought, and what he said. So Most of the quotes coming from the article are from Mubarak’s personal thoughts and words. There weren’t really any different quotes coming from different people, so there were no different personal biases included in the article of what peoples different perspectives were on the situation.
Dramatisation:
Dramatization is where journalists mainly focus on the most shocking parts of a story. They do this in order to heighten audience interest. This usually occurs for example where the article would begin with the worst of what happened instead of giving an introduction, sometimes it’s the images on the article, which attracts the whole story to the reader. Or sometimes statistics are included like the one in our article, different statistics were included in our article to draw the reader to just how dangerous the protests that took place in Egypt was, and how strict the police was with the weapons, which Mubarak had ordered them to have in hand. Statistics such as “160 police officers had been armed with automatic weapons and 4,800 live rounds”. As well as “50 police men had been supplied with automatic weapons and ammunition”
Fragmentation:
This article in particular was extremely biased with regard to this particular factor. It only considered the view of the protestors who were shot. Although this is what has been gathered by the news all over the world, since most of the worldwide agencies found that the events occurring in Egypt at the time of the revolution were crimes against humanity, it is also ideal for articles to include both sides of the story, in this case a justification by Mubarak on the actions that he took. It was evident that the news was true due to the statistics that were mentioned in the article, however it is also important for the reporter to state both sides of the story instead of focusing on the lawyers of the protestors and their claims.
Authority-Disorder:
Talking about revolution and authority change, I felt the article was directly related to this part of the analysis as well. Mubarak was unwanted by more than 80% of the country, he was accused by the rapidly growing population of Egypt of crimes against humanity and evident dictatorship after ruling Egypt for 30 years under what was perceived to be a democratic government. Regardless of the truth behind this issue, it is the role of the news agency to not publicise this authority-disorder, to ensure that situations in Egypt do not get any worse.
Did the article follow the prescribed list of types of information bias?
Yes the article that we have chosen did follow the prescribed list of information bias as you can read above. The article applied more of some of them than others. For example there wasn’t much personalization but there was more of authority disorder and a little bit of dramatization as well.
How did ‘informational-bias’ affect the way you perceived the news story?
I’m always on the humanitarian side of a story, however this especially brought out the details of the shootings and direct quotes said by Mubarak which only proved the corruption and deteriorating situation in Egypt even more. If Mubarak’s position were justified in a valid manner, this would have decreased the level of bias perceived in this article.
How do these parameters affect those stories that make it into print and those that don’t?
There are two extremes to answering this question, either not having enough bias not getting an article into printing or an article having too much bias, preventing its printing. If a story is completely neutral, it wont appeal to as many people since the political view of the citizens of a country tends to really be the same. An example of this is the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, an article published in the Middle East would need to show the view of the Palestinians for it to be printed, never would it be printed if it described sufferings in Israel, should there be any. On the other hand, in the case of Syria for example, what would occur if there were too much bias and the other side could be offended, is that the article would not be sent to printing.
