Death of Moammar Gaddafi: Media Around the World

By: Chao Yang, Hui Li, Shoichi Nakayama 

    Moammar Gaddafi, the "dictator" of Libya, was captured and killed in October 2011. In our project we will carefully study the presentation and representation of the news regarding this subject. We found out news reports from around the world, .... compared and contrasted the positions of each media. 

WSJ, Oct 21 2011

Wall Street Journal: The American Position                                                         --- by Hui

Two whole pages of the leading national newspaper were dedicated, on Friday October 21^st, to this subject. There was a horizontal panel across the top of the two pages which contains a short biography of Moammar Gaddafi, called “Libyan Leader Moammar Gadhafi’s Long Reign”. Important years in the colonel’s 69 years of life were mentioned. But when I close examine the dates involved, I found out that all the milestones mentioned were negative aspects of his life and his ruling of Libya, without mentioning any good things that he had done for his country. This one-sidedness can also be seen in the articles following. The article on which I will focus my discussion is called ‘Eccentric and Brutal, He Met End as a Fugitive”.

The main news report in this incident utilized strong words in the title – “eccentric”, “brutal”, and “fugitive”. Such modifier can also been seen throughout the report, such as “outcast”, “mad dog”, and “flamboyant”. A large, colored picture of the colonel, in his military uniform and medals, with an indifferent look on his face, was printed at the center of the page, occupying almost one fifth of the page. Another second-large picture on the opposite page showed exciting Libyans smiling and waving their national flags on the street celebrating Gaddafi’s death. The articles were certainly in a pro-American (or anti-Gaddafi) position, clearly stated the position of the Obama government – Gaddafi is a dictator and is now dead for his own good. The report started with the only interview with a Libyan – “This is the greatest moment for Libya. The criminal is dead to us and to history.” Attitude from other countries, such as the Middle East, was merely mentioned along with the process of capture of the colonel. A biography of Gaddafi occupied most of the article, from the time he seized power from the King, to one year before when the United Nation (UN) called the arrest of Gaddafi by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). He was described as a leader not ruling the country by his wisdom and foresight but by his “idiosyncratic cult of personality”. He has absolute power over the country and had a specially-trained bodyguard escort. The whole article refrained from talking about Gaddafi’s attempts to increase the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of the country, and other countries’ position on his death. The only positions mentioned were that from president Obama (“one of the world’s longest-serving dictators is no more”) and that from the Libyans. This is certainly a neutral report of the incident, more like propaganda for the government, justifying the capture, (possibly) torture and killing of Gaddafi.

Other news sources such as the Huffington Post (US edition) also depicted Gaddafi's death as a triumph for the Libyans. In the article Gaddafi was described as a "mercurial" leader who was "toppled by his own people". He even plead for mercy when the soldiers captured him. I can sense the sarcasm of the author in the article. The rest of the article was all written in a very subjective point of view, based on the assumption that Gaddafi was nothing but a cruel ruler of Libya. 

References: 

The Wall Street Journal, paper edition, Friday October 21, 2001, A8 and A9.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/20/muammar-gaddafi-dead-libya_n_1021843.html

People's Daily: The Chinese Position                                                                  --- by Chao

I am in charge of the Chinese news part of our group and I searched the most influential newspaper media, the People’s Daily, as the main resource for the news about Gaddafi’s death. It is published on Friday, October 21th, which is the second day after his death. It does not illustrate a lot about Gaddafi’s death--more accurately, about Gaddafi himself. Instead, it focuses much more to the result that Gaddafi got arrested; the situation about the war happened that day and some analysis about the future of Libya. There is a picture showing that people as the opposition party were celebrating Gaddafi’s death. The man who holds the gun claimed that the gun was owned to Gaddafi himself and he took it after his death. As you can see from the picture below, there are not too much images (Actually, only one image), words and testimonies originally. Most of the passage said the words are from local Medias. It seems that the People’s Daily makes its attitude more neutral than supportive or opposed.

Then I turn to some other Medias online for reference. What surprises me is that almost every website has its own special report about Gaddafi, from the beginning of the war to the death of Gaddafi, which could be treated as the end of this event. Most of them make columns showing different facts of this event: the news about situations in Libya, the media’s critics, the attitude of China and other countries, related pictures and videos. But it is interesting that I can hardly find any articles or even materials which reveal the detailed information of his death like how he was killed. And most of these websites have an articled named the significance of Gaddafi’s death while you can find nothing which really matters after you click the title of that passage. Also, there is a video which is less than 5 minutes showing Gaddafi’s 42 years of his political life. Unfortunately, what I get from that video is just that period of history without any comments or direction of public opinion.

It is kind of upset that I have no idea about where this information comes from after reading them. Like what I mentioned before, most of the words are said to be quoted from so-called “local media”. Questions come up to my mind like which media we quoted from, how local is the local one, who made this testimony, what kind of information or values could be translated accurately, why choose such a view or rhetoric to describe the news, etc.

Before I closed that page with all my doubts, I caught a sight of something interesting. It seems that the position which Chinese government takes changed as the event changed, though very slightly. From the time chart we can see that China did not want to take sanctions at the early stage of the Libya crisis. But finally the media gives out the passage saying that the Gaddafi’s death is a significant transition of Libya’s history.

Reference:

http://world.people.com.cn/GB/8212/191606/217303/index.html

http://news.sina.com.cn/z/lbyfdpgjsd/index.shtml

http://news.qq.com/zt2011/libiyawar/index.htm

Japan and North Korea: Other Countries' position                                          --- By Shoichi 

I read some of Japanese newspaper and online news to see how the Medias in Japan is reported in Japan. In almost every newspaper and online news website, I saw Japanese Medias taking completely neutral position toward this incident. They only report what happened PHYSICALLY. They reported when and where Gaddafi was found killed. They reported what those people who are related to this incident said; for example, “NATO reported that…..” Japanese Medias only reported what is already reported. They only say what others already have reported. Therefore I believe that it will be appropriate to say they are in neutral position toward this news. On newspaper, this news took 1/16 of the front page on Japan Economic News. Although this was on the front page I don’t think the Media people didn’t really put focus on this because there wasn’t really content beside what happened. I believe that what people are thinking and what Gaddafi was really trying to say are more important than when and where Gaddafi is killed. Media people must understand these things that people want to know, but they didn’t report it. This fact led me to the conclusion that Japanese Media is refusing to reveal what is really going on in Libya.

Meanwhile, all of the Medias in North Korea are forbidden to reveal anything about Gaddafi’s death. It is reported that North Korea executive director of 109 (109 controls the import of DVD, CD, TV dramas from foreign countries.) used glue in order not to let people change their radio channel. It is also reported that some people who knew about Gaddafi’s death and tried to tell other people were caught. Ironically, I found out that this news which I found online is reported by Japanese Media which was reporting what South Korean Media has already reported.

 Moreover, I saw some different positions that are supporting Gaddafi and criticizing Media for reporting only one side of the story in online websites including: online posting, youtube. I saw some people strongly stating that Gaddafi was actually helping Libya and was not supposed to be killed. For example there was a message posted on a website like “This is what they mean by peace: let your country be used by a nuclear-armed state (that previously used them on civilians and which justifies this horrendous act to this very day) to practice bombing targets while you spend your time partying.” These people who are against Media claim that as a dictator Gaddafi saved Libya because Libya was the world poorest country before Gaddafi improved it. They also said that U.S. and other western countries helped attacking Gaddafi because they wanted the oil in Libya.

Reference:

http://sankei.jp.msn.com/world/news/111021/mds11102101270003-n1.htm

http://headlines.yahoo.co.jp/hl?a=20111104-00000014-rcdc-cn

http://unitedblackamerica.com/16-reasons-life-lybia/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XorKTwkFPDU&feature=share

Comparison and positon: 

From all the news we found from different medias in different countries, we can find that medias choose to take different positions even when they are faced with the same material to report.

No matter Washington Post or Wall Street Journey, they both believe that the death of Gaddafi means a lot for both the democratization in Libya and the peace for the world. Also, they devote many pages even the headline in front page to report this event, along with crucial and strong phrase like “eccentric” and “brutal” to describe him.

Medias in Japan seems not that passionate about Gaddafi’s death, though they are considered in the same alliance with the United States. The Japan Economic News (The Nikkei), which can be taken as the representative of Japanese medias, spend one page to report this event in its international parts. It generally describes the whole procedure of the event and some reactions from other countries. But Japan keeps a neutral attitude to this event and does not say a lot about his own values on it.

As it comes to China, the People’s Daily, as the most influential news of Chinese government, only contributes two thirds of a page in its international column to this event. Instead of using Gaddafi’s death as the title of this article, it says that “Libya will turn over the page named “Gaddafi’s era” of its history”. Besides, it means something when we compare the difference of the position which Chinese medias hold as the event changed.

The medias in North Korea choose to keep silence rather than make any sounds about Gaddafi’s death when compared with medias in other countries.

So is there any kind of “leading classes” controlling the medias, especially for the news? The answer from us is YES! And we believe that the government plays a very important role in this event which has its impact all over the world. The performance of medias reflect exactly what the government want. The United States devote himself to maintain its righteous image to the public and maybe hide some unknown reasons for the war (Like the Iraq War, for the oil or the justice, who can tell?!) so that the media exaggerate the negative influence that Gaddafi brought and speaks less of his contribution to the development of Libya during his charge over the country painstakingly. Though Japan seems not that interested in this event, Japanese government has to ask its medias to make some responses because of its relationship with the United States and those European countries. Those responses are most neutral descriptions of the facts without any attitudes there since Japanese government will get very little, even none, profits in the coup of Libya. Changes of the attitudes of Chinese medias represent how Chinese government think about it in a way. Definitely that China cannot make any profit in this event and China used to have a fair relationship with Gaddafi’s government. But as the worldwide political pattern changed, Chinese government has to decide a new position for a better result for itself. So the compromise comes out in the end and through Chinese medias, it is spread to all over the world. The “sound of silence” phenomenon in North Korea just illustrates the attitude of the government there to autocracy: Once the people there know that they can make successful revolutions, they will pour all that they have to overthrow the government in the same way. They may push a lot of pressure to the media to block all the news about Gaddafi’s death to prevent any possibility to weaken their domination.

All in all, the media could represent the same news in different ways from the material to the way they describe it. They could make it as beautiful as the heaven, or as evil as the hell. Some media may have a better work than the others but we, as readers, can hardly tell the reality behind the words and pictures they provide to us. The only way for us to get a fully understanding of such an event is we have to take more than one position to think about it. Think as an American and then think as an Asian, there must be something more different we can get from.

Listeria Outbreak!

Jared Staege

Sophie Williams

Brittany Johnson

Emily Rouse

Alexandria Jesme

Topic: Listeria Outbreak
Our group decided to this topic because it was something that was current in the news and we could follow the updates and the differences of information between media outlets in real time. We wanted to use a couple of typical news outlets as a basis for comparison and see how that information was portrayed differently in the blog posts and the government sites.

Listeriosis is a food poisoning that can be caused by eating foods contaminated with the L. monocytogenes bacterium. This illness mostly affects pregnant women, newborns, elderly, and adults with impaired immune systems. This bacteria can grow in soil and water and can thrive in cold temperatures. We wanted to search this topic because we wanted to make connections between sources and see if we could find clues back to one main source. This will help us to realize that this ‘grand narrative’ of our history is really coming from only a couple of outlets. So what is the point of having so many stories written with the same information from all different outlets? They have to written about the ‘facts’ anyway right?

According to dictionary.com a fact is something that has really occurred or is actually the case. It is verifiable and usually corresponds to experience. This is important in our study because these news articles are eager to include ‘fact’ based information that makes their article more credible. Is there such thing as a ‘fact’ if the next day more information is found and the ‘facts’ change? Is it more important to get the facts straight or be the first one to write the news article?

Article 1:October 19, 2011

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/20/business/listeria-outbreak-traced-to-colorado-cantaloupe-packing-shed.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all

Jared:
The article, Listeria Outbreak Traced to Cantaloupe Packing Shed, from the New York Times is the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the Listeria outbreak from Jensen Farms in Colorado. Author William Neuman begins by giving some background of the situation. The outbreak began in late July, and is the deadliest foodborne illness since 1985. 123 people have gotten sick in 26 states, and 25 have died. The introduction of listeria to the farm remains unknown, but it is speculated that a dump truck used to carry the melons to a cattle farm was parked near the processing shed could have brought the bacteria back.
Neuman goes on to describe the farm as having multiple potential “breeding grounds” for listeria such as pools of water, unsanitary equipment, and improper procedure in the storing process. But what worries Neuman is the shoddy performance from the third-party auditors who inspected Jensen Farms and gave it a 96 out of 100. These auditors are meant to ensure the safety of the food industry, but their procedures are generally unregulated. This leads me, as I’m sure other consumers, to wonder, can we trust the U.S. food supply? Can we trust these third-party auditors? I don’t know. But Trevor V. Suslow puts it into perspective, stating that, “Auditors may give farmers, processors and retailers a false sense of security.” As a 19 year old college kid, if a “professional” says something is ok to eat of course I’m going to eat it with 100% confidence.
Something I really wonder from reading this article is how did James M. DiLorio give Jensen Farms a 96 out of 100 on his inspection of the production facility? What factors did take into account? Did he inspect the whole facility and all the equipment? Considering the result of the cantaloupe, I would find all of these questions hard to believe. If a testimonial from him were possible to attain, I would love to hear what he has to say to defend himself.

I think Neuman used his perspective of being skeptical of auditors to create a feeling of insecurity in consumers. As consumers, our docile bodies say “yes” to products with an “FDA Approved” sticker on them, but it is apparent through this outbreak and others that this is not always safe. From a college kids perspective it scares me but it’s not going to change how I eat: I will still eat whatever is cheapest because I’m broke. But as a parent or elderly person, this would scare the bejezzus out of me. Even if you don’t do something wrong, and auditor can screw up his auditing and if you buy the “safe” product, you or your kids could potentially get sick and die. Something in the auditing process needs to change. Qualifications must be set to officially become an auditor. Even when you become an auditor, another auditor should audit the place as well to be extra safe for the sake of Americans.

Response: Sophie’s comments for Jared’s article:

I like the viewpoint you take on the article. It’s almost as if you’re playing devil’s advocate when you consider the inspection notes of James M. DiLorio. Most people trust that a 96/100 is a good inspection grade, but the fact that you asked yourself those questions shows that you are able to read further into a potential problem. It’s interesting that the article pointed this fact out as well, almost placing more blame on the inspection team. Compared to other articles, it is obvious that there may be multiple reasons for the listeria outbreak, but they still followed the same guidelines. How many people were sick and how many died were always the first concern mentioned. My article differed from Jared’s because his focused on the FDA’s aspect of the outbreak whereas mine placed the blame on outside factors (such as animals). I also feel that because the articles were written within 10 days of each other, not much information could have came in to play to let viewers know of what was going on with the outbreak because of the short amount of time.
Article 2:September 29, 2011

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/nationnow/2011/09/listeria-outbreak-how-do-i-know-if-i-have-it-what-are-the-symptoms-.html
Lexi:
Listeria is causing some major panic, but in this article, Listeria outbreak: How do I know if I have it? What are the symptoms? From the Los Angeles Times seems to be more of a calming than hysterical article. It seems like the author, Rene Lynch is trying to inform people to stay calm, perfect!take simple precaution and at all costs avoid cantaloupe. The article touches on a little bit about how it’s spreading, the cause of the outbreak, what causes this bacteria, and then aims all of the tainted cantaloupe back to the Jensen Farms in Colorado. From this cantaloupe farm they are doing an international recall and until they find out more. They are also expecting the amount of tests positive to strains of Listeria monocytogenes to increase as more results come in. The Listeria bacteria is formed by little bugs that make you become ill within a few weeks to a few months period of time. They are causing one of the nations deadliest food-borne disease in more than a decade, and if you think because your cantaloupe is in the fridge, don’t kid yourself, the bugs multiply and enjoy the cold rather than killing them off. In reading this article, I would have enjoyed more so the facts of where this is taking place the most in the country, what states it has hit the most directly and where these cantaloupes are mainly distributed. I feel like it is over emphasized to keep calm and “when in doubt, throw it out.” Although, it is good to know that, I feel like I’m missing key details and facts. Were there any signs of this on the cantaloupe? Did Jensen Farms have any idea their cantaloupes were or could possibly be tainted? If symptoms appear are there any methods of improving your status or getting better? This article has the facts that the hysterical people need, but the people staying calm and being warned have nothing to work with if the symptoms diagnosed on them. What is interesting is that they have a Fruity Pebbles advertisement on the page as well as a company trying to tell their services of consulting, technology and outsourcing. I think it is funny that none of the surrounding advertisements relate to selling fresh food, organic food, or produce of any sort. Due to the shortage of the facts and information regarding this article, it strikes curiosity of to if is this all the information known and what information known is being withheld from the public? Chomsky and Herman had an intelligent plan to be curious of what information is put out for the world to read. What if this is all a scam let by the few corporations to that hold majority of the world’s or country’s power and wealth? Although the Listeria outbreak is a growing problem and causing many to be ill, we have to wonder if this is really the truth?
Response: Brittany’s comment on Lexi’s write-up:
After reading and comparing Listeria outbreak tied to water, dirty equipment to the article Listeria outbreak: How do I know if I have it? What are the symptoms?, similarities in the style of reporting are evident.
The former article emphasized how the Listeria was able to develop, looking directly at the “facts”. Overlain with an educational focus for the audience, an idealist form of history was the result.
The latter article ultimately arrives at the same method, albeit in a slightly different manner.
Listeria outbreak tied to water, dirty equipment tells when, where, and how the outbreak started. Listeria outbreak: How do I know if I have it? What are the symptoms? mentions the location of origination, but skips ahead to flag warning signs and offer methods of prevention: what symptoms to be wary of, when symptoms will arise, what to do if such symptoms arise, and how to avoid future contamination.
“Facts” are a key tool both reporters use, but their “facts” are just selected from different locations in the timeline of the Listeria outbreak. Essentially, the former article offers “facts” that lead up to Listeria forming, and the latter offers “facts” that lead up to finding and avoiding the infection of Listeria. Both achieve the idealist reporting.

Article 3: October 19, 2011

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504763_162-20122627-10391704.html
Brittany:
In the article Listeria outbreak tied to water, dirty equipment published by CBS News over a recent Listeria outbreak that surfaced, author David Freeman attempted to relay findings through an educational, fact-focused lens. Slight blame is on Jensen farms (where Listeria-carrying cantaloupes originated from), but more detail is on explanations as to how the Listeria potentially was able to develop.
The most urgent information audiences need to know for recalls is the item, source of contamination, and scope of the outbreak. CBS, being a major news source, discloses that cantaloupes from Jensen Farms in Colorado have been found to carry Listeria that has become the deadliest outbreak in more than two decades.
The “facts” begin as soon as Freeman starts the article. Fact one: 25 people have died. Fact two: unclean facilities. Fact three: those facilities belong to Jensen Farms. The list of “facts” grows with each following sentence. Why might Freeman record only the “facts”? Most likely to give the audience an easy-to-follow narrative, with a distinct starting and ending point.
These “facts” appear to line up rather nicely for the history of this Listeria outbreak.
The main explanation is as follows: Jensen Farms, a provider of cantaloupe based in Colorado, purchased used machinery this past July. Also during the month of July was the first evidence of an outbreak. The machinery was thus investigated and found to be “old, corroded, and hard to clean”. Combining these drawbacks led to water being left on the floor post-cleanings; pooled water next to packing equipment might have been the proper climate for the Listeria to grow.
However, Freeman writes the following excerpt: “Listeria ‘could have been introduced as a result of past use of the equipment,’ according to the report. / The agency said the contamination likely happened in the packing house, but the way the cantaloupes were cooled after being picked may have contributed to Listeria growth. The farm did not use a process called "pre-cooling" that is designed to remove condensation that can promote the growth of Listeria bacteria on the cantaloupe rinds.”

A second likely source of Listeria is also mentioned, but only briefly. Freeman merely notes that a truck possibly was the source of contamination and Listeria was carried into the packing house by more equipment or by people.
By offering various “facts” that point to different conclusions, Freeman achieves essentially an idealistic history: no tainted, biased, or discarded facts. Only after the outbreak actually occurred was Freeman able to read the reports and look at facility conditions and claim that in due time, an outbreak was bound to occur. Freeman creates a timeline of events which sequences the outbreak (the purchase of machinery, the lack of upkeep of the machinery, and the Listeria growth as a result), and his grand narrative is born.
Response: Emily’s comment for Brittany’s Article:
I felt like the information that was included in this CBS article was pretty similar to the article from the medical website. The major difference was the title of the article. When it just mentions Listeria outbreak caused from a couple of contaminations it does not catch my attention as much as the medical article does about 28 people dead from this particular outbreak. I was surprised about this different because I would assume that CBS grand narrative would include more emotional wording to pull in the audience. I also thought it was interesting to see that both articles had sited information from the CDC which included a lot of the numerical facts. Also, this article was written a week before the medical article, so the ‘facts’ have actually all changed since it was published. I think it is interesting that news can be presented in real time and everything seems like it is happening now and needs to be told right now and by tomorrow the facts about the incident might change and they will have to write another article about the same topic just to stay on top of the ‘new facts.’ But it is worth it to them to retell the same story again just so they can be seen as current and updated news.

Article 4: October 8, 2011

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/10/08/listeria-outbreak-death-toll-rises-to-21/
Sophie:
Just as the title of the article Listeria Outbreak Death Toll Rises to 21 implies, the diction within the article is very serious. Instead of an author, it simply says associated press. The article is very brief and to the point. It doesn’t explain what the listeria outbreak is, it explains what is causing it and where the harm is being done. This article was found on foxnews.com which is obviously a widely known source. Since so many people look into fox news and it is known to be decently reliable, people feel as though they should take the outbreak very seriously since it is being portrayed that way. The way the article comes across reminds me of someone searching WebMD.com. If they have a runny nose, all of the sudden they have cancer. With the article, it gives off the impression that if you are so much as looking at a cantaloupe, you’re going to be infected with listeria. Of course they’re just trying to make viewers aware of what is going on, but in my opinion it is very extreme.
Listeria Outbreak Death Toll Rises to 21 also states that officials are looking into the fact that animals getting around the patches of cantaloupe may have something to deal with the outbreak, so they need to look into it more. Well, given the fact that listeria is typically caused by animals, this would be a pretty safe assumption if you ask me.
What were more surprising to me within the article were the advertisements and related articles along the side. One in particular drips with irony. There is a picture of a small fruit that is orange (similar to the color of a cantaloupe) and the caption next to it says “How this strange 62-cent fruit is making Americans skinny”. People are dying of listeria from eating cantaloupe, a fruit, yet there is an article about a fruit that makes you skinnier. You would think most people who saw this would want to steer clear of fruits based off the outbreak, but if we reference back to our bodies unit, I am sure that plenty of people were intrigued by this and read it instead. Americans are so much more worried about their appearance rather than something that could truly affect them.
Although I am being quite critical about the article, it definitely gives me something to worry about based on some experiences I’ve had. Most people probably hear about it and don’t think it would happen to them, but they need to realize that it could. The article says that listeria is more deadly than other pathogens, such as salmonella and E. Coli. My cousin had to deal with a horrible case of E. Coli just by playing in the water when she was younger. She was nearly dead multiple times. Although she is better now, she still occasionally suffers from severe pain. For me, this puts into perspective how easy it may be that you, or someone you know or love could potentially be infected with a fatal pathogen even if you are doing nothing wrong.
Response: Lexi’s Comparison to Sophie’s Article

Listeria is spun and turned around in many articles, but it really would confuse someone reading the article I first analyzed, Listeria outbreak: How do I know if I have it? In that article it really has such a laid back, don’t panic, it isn’t a huge pandemic sort of feel to it. Where as the article Sophie analyzed, Listeria Outbreak Death Toll Rises to 21, takes on a very serious tone, making it seem like if you do not read this article and take every word seriously and take serious precaution, you will make the death toll reach twenty two. If I had thought I myself had possibly come down with possible symptoms of Listeria and had come across these two articles, I first would feel at ease from reading Listeria outbreak: How do I know if I have it? Then reading, Listeria Outbreak Death Toll Rises to 21 I would be in a frantic panic. The article states, “in 23 states, from California to the East Coast.” Making it seem like the whole nation is in a crucial state everyone getting sick and dying. Fox New and LA Times are on completely different sides of the political spectrum and so I ultimately think their ways of reporting and how they report the news have an impact no the tone that the story takes. Such different tones of a stories can really impact the way someone understands a story and how to interpret it into their daily lives.

Article 5: October 26, 2011

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/news/fullstory_117947.html
Emily:
The source name for this article the MedlinePlus which says it is “Trusted Health Information for You,” but it also indicates that this service is provided by the U.S. National Library of Medicine and the National Institutes of Health. When the word “listeria” was typed in for a google search it was the seventh hit on the first page, but that only brought you to the main page of listeria on the website. Then, the topic ‘latest news’ had to be clicked and the article ‘listeria outbreak’ had to be selected to find the full article about this particular topic. The name of the article is called Death Toll from Listeria Outbreak Hits 28 with no indicated writer. It does mention that the information comes from the CDC reports. The CDC is another government based website called the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The MedlinePlus website is a government based site which means there is no advertising present on the page. The website has particular quality guidelines for their articles: it must be appropriate, authoritative health information. Some requirements for the health content include the organization providing the information must provide, accurate, science-based information that complements or enhances the government information, the content is original and does not link to already produced information from other sites, and the website requires a clear differentiation between content and advertising.
This article provides a lot of facts about the subject and includes several direct quotes from professionals in the industry that have been providing information and news conferences and news releases. The article also includes were the listeriosis-linked deaths were located by state in the last couple of months and who were affected most by it. It indicates that people in the age range of 48-96 who are newborns, elderly, and pregnant women; typically anyone that has a weak immune system. After reading this article, I realized that I did not understand much about this particular disease because it was the first time I was exposed to this particular outbreak. I felt the article was missing general background information about listeria. I understood that the contamination grew from the poor sanitary conditions from the farm, but that is typical of disease and germ outbreak. They also mentioned that it could have been because of how the stored the fruit in the cold storage, but I didn’t realize why this would be a problem until I researched this particular disease and realized that it can still flourish in cold temperatures. I felt like this article has a helpful quick read to get the major updates about the outbreak, but it did not provide much content and background about this particular disease. It was as if I needed prior knowledge to completely understand this problem. Also, the language was pretty simple and there were not many medical terms that were hard to follow even though it was on a medical government website.
I think this article was presented like this because it they wanted to give their audience the quick facts and updates about the topic. If the reader needs more background information or wants more of an opinion about the topic, they can search for other articles that are more blog based. I feel like this article is written in a way to cover itself. It provides information from other people and other sources which indicates that it never actually provides information itself. This may mean that the attention cannot be directed on them if the information they present later becomes false. They really don’t have any attachment or consequences to their information. It is weird to read an article on a website that is only information from other sources. I feel like there is not credit to the article because the writer is masked, so I don’t feel comfortable about the information presented.
Response: Jared’s comments on Emily’s article

The perspective in Death Toll From Listeria Hits 28 from Medline Plus seems mainly fear based, and doesn’t aim to blame a particular group or person. It merely mentions that it was caused from unsanitary conditions at the farm. Seeing as it is from a “.gov” website and has the words “med” and “health” all over the site, it mainly appears, as Emily stated, as though it is a service provided by the government to inform people about listeria. That is, where it grows, how it grows, who it attacks, and where it has attacked. In comparison to the New York Times article Listeria Outbreak Traced to Cantaloupe Packing Shed, it shares some of those same qualities but fails to match with the stance taken. The New York Times article stands and supports the belief that the third party auditors are to blame for the outbreak due to their unregulated inspections and potentially unqualified workers.

Comparing the Medline Plus article with the New York Times is like comparing apples and oranges. Whereas Medline Plus takes an informative stance, the New York Times is specifically blaming someone.

Conclusion:

We feel like this project was helpful to see that there is this grand narrative that is going on around us that we are not completely aware of! A couple of the articles sited their information was from CDC and everyone just wants to include the facts and avoid the opinions while other articles are interesting in pointing figures! One of the most interesting presented in class was that we can pick anything we want from the list that we are provided. It is as if we appear to be free with what we do, read, and learn in our lives. But if someone is providing a path and telling us how to do everything behind the scenes, are we really free? This is the same idea with these articles; these seem to be the same facts that are all coming from the same source. What parts did they leave out that these news outlets are not digging to find out? Whose job is it to find this type of information? If it is not provided in the original ‘grand narrative’ is it gone forever?

Minnesota Marriage Amendment

Minnesota Amendment SF1308 in the News

Marcus Johnson, Molly Harris, Valerie Troutman

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The debate over the legalization of gay marriage has been a topic of hot contention within the past 50 years. Currently, the states of Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Maine and Vermont and most recently New York (July 24th, 2011) as well as the District of Columbia have legalized gay marriage. The result in New York was unexpected due to its majority Republican Senate. In effect, many supporters of gay marriage believe this marks a change in momentum and that other states will soon follow suit.

Our group has decided to focus on gay marriage in Minnesota. Many headlines in recent news cycles have stated that the issue will be a central focus of the coming 2012 election. Historically, the Minnesota Supreme Court was one of the first to rule against same-sex marriages in Baker v. Nelson (1971). Recently, the Minnesota House and Senate passed SF 1308 (May 2011) which is a bill proposing an amendment to the Minnesota Constitution stating that marriage is the union of one man to one woman. This amendment will be voted on in the 2012 election. For more information on the history of gay marriage in Minnesota visit the Minnesota Legislation Reference Library.

We examined three different media arenas with regards to gay marriage in Minnesota. The first consists of the Star Tribune, Pioneer Press and the conglomerate of the Associated Press via Google News. These will serve as a base line reading of the issue. The second is media with clear political and social agendas. Specifically the magazine Lavender was examined. The final arena lies within the number one social network, Facebook, where the two largest groups for and against gay marriage in Minnesota were analyzed.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

THE STAR TRIBUNE, PIONEER PRESS, GOOGLE NEWS

A general search query of “gay marriage minnesota” and “legalization of gay marriage minnesota” on both websites for the Star Tribune and the St. Paul Pioneer Press yield similar articles. The Oct. 23rd, 2011 article Minn. companies stay on gay marriage sidelines by Patrick Condon of the Associated Press appears in both publications. This article personifies Minnesota Companies and thus serves as an example of Ranke’s history through nations. Additionally, this article cites John Taft, CEO of RBC Wealth Management U.S. and an avid gay rights supporter, who states that his company’s policy is to only take positions on financial and policy issues having to do with business. Taft serves as an example of Hegel’s history of great men. In effect, this article offers a grand narrative; that the natural and normal stance of Minnesota companies should be neutrality with regard to gay marriage. Despite this neutral stance on the issue, it seems that these corporations do not support gay marriage. It is noted several times that these businesses support gay rights through events and donations. However, the article is quick to point out that many feel that explicit corporate support of gay marriage is not in their best interests.

Another article entitled, Bishops begin fight for marriage vote proved very interesting. First, for those who are not aware of the context for the “marriage vote”, it would seem that these Catholic Bishops are in support of gay marriage. However, as noted in the introduction to this project the passage of the amendment actually opposes gay marriage. Furthermore, the stance of the Catholic Church regarding same-sex marriage is never explicitly stated. It is strongly implied through phrases such as, “Church leaders say that the amendment to ban gay marriage is a top issue in 2012 election” that the Catholic Church opposes gay marriage. This is an interesting way to present information because it allows to the news publication to remain more or less objective and places the burden of judgment upon the reader.

Surprisingly, there were no recent articles with views from the Minnesota gay community. Arguably, the Star Tribune and the Pioneer Press may have deemed it unnecessary to include such an article because of the way in which they reported the opposing sides. Specifically, by removing religious groups and corporations, that the gay community and possible some small number of constituents must clearly oppose the amendment. According to Stuart Hall, this serves as a type casting or classification of the different groups that are involved in the gay marriage issue. The concept of “matter out of place” seems to be in play here because these articles, although not explicitly stated, aim to separate gays from religion and work.

With regard to Herman and Chomsky’s Manufacturing Consent, specifically the filters 1) the size, concentrated ownership, owner wealth, and profit orientation of the dominant mass-media firms and 2) advertising as the primary income source of the mass media, it is makes sense why both the Star Tribune and the Pioneer Press have chosen to report on the gay marriage amendment in the way they do. After refreshing the web pages for the various described articles, one can get a pretty good idea of who supports and advertises with these publications. Notably, the companies Target and General Mills, T-Mobile, Google, Facebook, Twitter, and assorted investment firms all have banner-advertisements. It is important to note that none of these advertisements make an argument for or against gay rights much less gay marriage. However, in light of the style of reporting and the issues both news sources have chosen to report on it is clear that they take an anti-gay marriage stance. According to Herman and Chomksy, it would seem that the Star Tribune and the Pioneer Press are relaying the beliefs of their corporate sponsors. It is important to note that the “flak” filter is also in play. Clear-cut views and opinions on gay marriage in Minnesota appear in the Op. Ed. sections but with a disclaimer that these are not the expressed view of either publication. This acts to disarm the populous because they are given an arena to voice their dissent, comment, and raise concern about gay marriage but with no negative repercussions to either publication.

Using the previously mentioned search phrases on Google News gave surprising results. The number one result was Kim Kardashian’s recent divorce. Evidently the 72-day marriage has resulted in numerous opinion and editorial articles stating that the issue of same-sex marriage is about marriage as a civil-right and not who you are “gay, straight, or Kim Kardashian” as one such opinion article stated. It is interesting that the national news cycle has focused their attention on Kim Kardashian as opposed to the actual issue at hand. Then again, from the view of Herman and Chomsky, Kardashian sells.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

LAVENDER, MINNESOTA FOR MARRIAGE

It was difficult to find articles about the marriage amendment when searching for local and alternative media outlets geared toward the gay community. Lavender Magazine appeared first when googling the key words. Lavender Magazine is a biweekly magazine published in Minneapolis, Minnesota for the gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender community. It was launched in 1995 has become the largest pride publication in America. On October 20, 2011 an article, Commentary: A Bill for an Act, written by David Hancox, was published in the website’s “affairs section.” The article begins by stating that a bill is being considered for the 2012 Minnesota Legislature will ask members to consider banning interracial marriage. Clearly that was just an example and the author begins to ask questions with that example in mind, How would the public react? How would the religious community react? Hancox then explains that the marriage amendment isn’t about sin and it isn’t about protecting our youth, it’s about discrimination and that is how the GLBTQ culture feels. Later the article quotes republican political figures inter-textually. They both provide quotes in favor of same sex marriage and they wish for the amendment to be revoked. The overall narrative of the article is the GLBTQ community feels that the amendment is discrimination. It’s not a matter of sin, protecting the youth, or maintaing the tradition. It’s about happiness and love. They, as well as the political leaders quoted, feel that it’s so hard to find happiness and why take that away from individuals when it’s finally found.

Minnesota for Marriage, a coalition of leaders, people of other inter-faith and those outside the religious community, that support the Minnesota Marriage Amendment. The website’s goal is to raise awareness about the current threat to marriage and why traditions and regulations should remain the same. Why Marriage Matters was the general article on the webpage. It explains the overall views of members apart of the campaign. They believe that marriage should be between one man and one woman. Throughout society it has been explained this way for the sole reason of children, “Why has virtually every society throughout history defined marriage as the union of one man and one woman? The answer can be summarized in one word: children.” The government’s reason of regulating marriage laws will protect the interest of children. People are free, under the law, to live as they choose therefore they can engage in whatever type of relationship they wish to have. Minnesota for Marriage activists feel that they are not discriminating because they are trying to protect their children rather than segregating the GLBTQ community and relationships within their culture. They also state that only a man and woman can produce a child therefore they deserve the right to marriage. The overall narrative and goal of Minnesota for Marriage is to maintain marriage as a union between a man and women to protect the interests of children and society as a whole.

Herman and Chomsky’s propaganda model was within Lavender and Minnesota for Marriage’s websites. The ownership of the medium, Lavender Magazine, is Lavender Media. Within Lavender Magazine, the website is loaded with advertisements specifically for the GLBTQ culture. “Home Owners Insurance,” more commonly known as Farmers Agent Insurance, is advertised on the side as well as “Lavender Thursdays,” at Marriott Minneapolis Center. The sourcing of articles are in commonly known places and quotes from well established political figures are used. The article consistently puts down activists for the amendment. The “flak” for the opposing side is obvious and clear for example, “We should not just simply ignore the absurdity of the kind of ridiculousness that is being presented as fact by those who support a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage in Minnesota. There needs to be a demand for a rejection of the propagation of this kind of myth and misinformation. No other minority community would sit by idly and accept this kind of ludicrousness” (Hancox). Minnesota for Marriage also exemplifies the propaganda model. The website’s ownership is large organizations and religious communities against same sex marriage. There are no advertisements on the sides, only ways to get involved and websites that promote Minnesota for Marriage’s ideals. Within the website, the campaign stays true to their values and continually presents the GLBTQ culture in a negative manner. Flak is always present and they blame the GLBTQ community for the threat to marriage. Minnesota for Marriage also provides the “fear” factor; if marriage becomes open to all, society will change for the bad. Both articles have been manufactured for society. More specifically each article has been produced to put down the other body and promote their goals regarding the upcoming 2012 election.

A central narrative and theme within both is how the change will affect the children of society. Lavender makes it clear that the decision to legalize same sex marriage has nothing to do with youth and it’s not about that at all. Instead of harming youth it will benefit them. It will teach children acceptance of people who are different. Contrary to that belief, Minnesota for Marriage believes that allowing same sex marriage will hurt the youth. How will parents explain marriage and the creation of babies if marriage isn’t solely for a man and a women? Altering the laws will change societal ideals and cause destruction in the future is the belief of Minnesota for Marriage. It’s significant to focus on the children because ultimately the decision will effect upcoming youth the most.

When searching for local and alternative media created specifically for each side, groups for the amendment had more information, propaganda, and publicity. The opinion and information was precise, organized, and professional within Minnesota for Marriage. As for Lavender and other GLTBQ media outlets it was difficult to find articles about the upcoming election. Lavender, as a whole, focuses more on arts, culture, and entertainment. Feature stories included “The Lynx: Photo Galleries,” and “On the Record: Feist, Tori Amos, and Dessa.” After searching within the website, articles about the amendment were found in the affairs section. In specific articles the stance wasn’t initially stated and was hidden amongst background information. Maybe the GLTBQ community views their stance as ideological and obvious? Still, it’s important to state the objective visibly for an outsider’s sake. The narrative of marriage is clearly defined for Minnesota for Marriage. Lavender’s, as well as others apart of the GLBTQ community, hope to change traditionalist’s ideologies over time. Each group achieves their goal of extending their opinions out to their own community, but what will determine the outcome of this amendment is which group advocates to the other side first and eventually sways and changes their opinion’s.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

FACEBOOK EVENTS

For many young adults, Facebook has become a major source for information and an outlet for opinions to be shared. It is an easily accessible place where our generation is able to document history in the making. Anyone is able to post statuses, images, and videos or create an event, page, or group that argues his or her point of view. In this way, Facebook affords its users a certain level of agency within the constraints of profile and posting rules. Moreover, it is this agency that allows users to become authors or historians. The creator of an event, group, or profile also has the ability to delete posts and comments that are put on the event. Effectively, this empowers the creator with sole control of censorship. In light of Herman and Chomsky’s Manufacturing Consent, it is clear that this power is much like that of a state bureaucracy or monopoly. The expression of the creator’s views are ensured and in effect the content is biased.

In regards to the upcoming vote on the Minnesota amendment to define gay marriage, many Facebook entities have been created. Most notably, two November, 6th 2012 events, “I WILL vote NO on the marriage amendment!” (Vote No) and “Vote ‘YES’ to Protect Marriage in MN” (Vote Yes) are connected to the most people, and are the two events one comes across first when searching this topic on Facebook.

The Vote Yes event has 315 people attending, with a total of about 1,310 people that have been attached to this event (people that have been notified about the event and are in the categories “attending”, “maybe attending”, “not attending” and “awaiting reply”) . The information section is written in a very straight forward, organized and fact-based way. Even stating “knowledge is the most important thing about voting”, yet it is only providing information that pertains to their stance on the issue, and gives many religious websites as references. The second paragraph states “If this bill is not passed, it won’t legalize gay marriage, but may leave the door open for interpretation. This bill is an important event in protecting the sanctity of marriage.” Just the phrase “leave the door open for interpretation” reinforces one of the common arguments that if same-sex marriage is legalized that it will cause “all sorts of ridiculous things” as explained in this image that was posted recently on both events. The text “open the door” and also “sanctity of marriage” are key phrases that are repeated numerous times throughout posts and comments.

The Vote No event has 89,440 people attending, with over 210,000 people connected to it, with that number increasing by the hour. The shear numbers associated with the Vote No event alone brings an argument. Within the Facebook community, there is an overwhelming amount of support for voting against the marriage amendment. Though one should not make his or her voting decision based off of others, these numbers are not reflective of the Minnesota public. The information section of it is written very candidly. The creator talks about why he created the event and also reminds future contributors to the event to “try to keep [comments] civil”. It only states at the very end a few important details about the amendment and if it passing it is only “furthering the already discriminator act of MN law”.

Though they have clear differences in point of view, the two events do have some striking similarities. Both have a clear outline of MN as their event photo, Vote No with the signature rainbow flag and Vote Yes with the male and female outlines holding hands. Vote Yes’s photo emphasizes the “One Man, One Woman” key phrase while Vote No’s photo reads “For Better, For Worse, For All”, utilizing common marriage vow text. Additionally, a lot of the same people are posting on the walls of these two events, and even posting the same article or image on both events. It is clear that a few individuals are contributing to a majority of the content through posts and comments.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

When searching for information and articles, celebrities and other pop culture items appeared more often than the actual amendment and election in Minnesota. This may be due to the fact that the vote is a full year away, but it is important to note that those in favor of the amendment are the most prevalent in the media today. It was difficult to find an article about the Minnesota amendment in Lavender Magazine, a Minneapolis publication. With a topic that directly affects the state, one would think that there would be some information available with aims at educating and preparing people for the upcoming vote. In contrast there was a plethora of articles and postings about protecting the sanctity of marriage and various campaigns (including one with a gift card as an incentive) to gain support of the amendment.

A recent poll found that a majority of Minnesotans oppose the amendment to ban gay marriage. The specific numbers were 55% opposed and 39% in favor. This provides a sharp contrast to our group findings. The articles and opinions expressed in the Star Tribune and Pioneer Press indicate that Minnesotans, across religious and corporate fronts, are opposed to gay marriage. Additionally, there was a large disparity in the number of people involved in the two Facebook groups examined (over 89,000 in support of the gay marriage ban versus 315 against it). Taking into consideration the analysis of the articles in the Star Tribune and Pioneer Press with respect to Stuart Hall as well as the Herman-Chomsky application of censorship to Facebook, we are given the impression that there is overwhelming support for the ban on gay marriage in Minnesota. We can safely label these groups as the leading classes whose aim is to guide its audience to an anti-gay marriage stance. The dominance of this view in the media we examined can be extended to a form of media control and thus admits itself to the creation (or in this case literally writing) of history. The matter-of-fact reporting on the issue and the social media reinforcement are dangerous because we, as the audience, are offered little or no opposing view from these same sources.

The examination of Lavender seemed surprising at first.The magazine seems to focus primarily on arts and culture events as well as health and wellness within the Minnesota’s gay community. The issue of finding explicit support for gay marriage and/or expressed opposition to the amendment was initially alarming however; searches for “gay marriage” and “legalization of gay marriage” in the national news cycle yielded results that similarly kept to the arena of popular culture. As previously mentioned, the Kim Kardashian divorce was among the top search results. Other notables include Conan O’Brien’s officiating of a gay wedding on his show and Elton John’s support of New York Governer Andrew Cuomo for his support and victory in the legalization of gay marriage in New York.

The linked article regarding Elton John and Gov. Cuomo is representative of other related articles. There is a short blurb about John’s support and praise of Cuomo some donation statistics but the focus seems to be on a benefit where the two met. Celebrities are named, pictures of fashionable people appear, but the issue of gay marriage is not present. The emphasis on popular culture works to distract readers from the actual issue and to a certain extent romanticizes the gay community. The format and reporting found in Lavender corroborates this notion as well. As noted, the sponsorship and advertising of Lavender may have a greater influence on its content despite the magazines clear affiliation with the gay community. Taking into consideration the ideas of classification and grand narrative, it would seem that the gay community makes sense if it exists and is well defined within the spectrum of arts and culture rather than in the political spectrum.

When approached with a big decision to make, hopefully one searches many media outlets and information to build his or her opinion. Unfortunately if one only source is referenced, a partial truth could be perceived as the overall story. As seen by our analysis, sources of information can be edited and filtered to promote a specific agenda, whether it is obvious or not.