NST vs. NYT

The world has recently been overwhelmed by news reporting and coverage on the incident off-the coast of Gaza. The incident involved the Israeli Navy and a small fleet or flotilla of ships bound for blockaded Gaza and occurred in international waters.

The international flotilla was carrying aid meant for the people of Palestine. The flotilla was also ferrying peace activists and volunteers. However, on early Monday morning of May 31, 2010, the Israeli Navy decided to board the flotilla. A confrontation was reported. And as a result of that, several passengers become casualties and many others are injured.

Up to the time of this entry, the interest in the issue remained strong. And the issue still make news as the impact is very much felt and lingered amongst not only people in Malaysia but also the entire world. Many news reports have been made thus far, be it locally or internationally. Some of them are rather factual and to-the-point, but there are also those which raise concerns in relation to ethical reporting.

To illustrate my point, I present you with 2 news articles from The New Straits Times (NST) and The New York Times (NY Times).

The article in NST is titled "16 killed in Israeli attack on aid flotilla". On the other hand, the NY Times article is given the headline, "Israel Intercepts Gaza Flotilla; Violence Reported". The choice of words in both articles is rather fascinating. The NST's article decides to call the incident as an "Israeli attack", whereas, Kershner from the NY Times merely describes it as Israel intercepting the flotilla.

Another divergent play on words can be seen in the manner the casualties are reported. The NST headline begins with the reported number of casualties – 16. The NY Times in contrast mildly addresses the casualties by stating that, "Violence [is] reported".

The last semantic aspect of the headline is the portrayal of the flotilla itself. The local NST clearly mentions that the flotilla is in fact carrying aid. Is is, however, less clear in the NY Times as it describes the flotilla simply as the “Gaza [f]lotilla”.

Headlines are what attract readers to continue reading a particular article. They provide the outline of the news and oftentimes play key role in luring readers. As such, it is vital for the headlines to be structured in a certain manner in the effort to either brings interest to the article or tone it down as to avoid interest. Clearly from the Malaysian headline, the article denotes something gruesome and is gory-sounding. But the NY Times’ article make the incident appear to be something less serious and thus of not much significance.

If headlines is what prompt the readers to continue reading, the first paragraph or lead sets the tone and direction of the article.

This is the first paragraph of the NST article: "Israeli forces on Monday attacked an international flotilla carrying aid to besieged Gaza, killing up to 16 and wounding more than 30 others, an Israeli television reported."

And this is NY Times’: "The Israeli Navy made its first contact with a flotilla carrying hundreds of pro-Palestinian activists and thousands of supplies for Gaza shortly before midnight on Sunday, surprising the boats in international waters, according to activists on one vessel."

The NST kept its tone from the headline till the end by clearly pointing out that Israel attacked the flotilla. Similarly, the NY Times too kept its pace by playing it cool and describing the whole occurrence as "first contact". To be fair, however, the NY Times does mention that the incident is an attack much later on in the fourth paragraph.

It must be noted that article in the NST maintained that the incident is an act of aggression. The Malaysian newspaper mentions that 16 got killed in three places – headline, first and third paragraph. The latter two also mentions of the 30 others on board who got injured. In a conflicting contrast, the NY Times only reports the incident as "...killing at least two and wounding an unknown number of people on board". This greatly minimises the impact of the raid.

Another interesting and important matter to take heed of is the description of Israel in the incident. According to the NY Times, it is the Israeli Navy that is responsible in making contact with the ships. But in the NST, it is reported that Israeli forces and commandos are responsible for the attack. When the term "forces" is used, it usually indicates the entire armed forces and thus creates a grander appearance of Israel unleashing the wrath of all its military might on the flotilla.

Now that the portrayal of Israel has been covered; let’s have a look at how the passengers and victims are being depicted.

The NY Times describes the people on board the flotilla as "pro-Palestinian activists" and that "...the convoy of six cargo and passenger boats is the most ambitious attempt yet to break Israel’s three-year blockade of Gaza." The fact that Kershner also links the flotilla to "...the Islamic militant group Hamas," further implicating faults to those on the flotilla. All these may indicate to the readers that they may be hostile towards the Israelis.

But, the article also gives another perspective of the people on board as well as the Israelis by stating that flotilla is led by Free Gaza Movement and the leader is quoted to state that, "[w]e communicated to them [Israel] clearly that we are unarmed civilians. We asked them not to use violence." This somewhat counters previous sentiment in the article and allows readers an alternative view to the parties involved.

Surprisingly, for an article which appears to strongly condemn the attack, the NST article is lacking in the representation of the victims in the write-up. No victim or anyone on board the flotilla is interviewed and quoted. Only the twitter account of the Free Gaza Movement is used.

What little the article has to say about the passengers is neither complimentary nor in tandem with the victimisation tone as eminently portrayed throughout the article. The article mentions that the "...activists ignored Israeli order to turn back” and consequently, the “…Israeli forces opened fire after being attacked by a number of passengers."

But in the end, the choices made in the portrayal of passengers on board either by the NST or the NY Times makes them more ‘human’ as they are many sides to a person.

However, the same can’t be said about the stereotype on Israel-Palestine conflict in the Middle East. The NY Times article, seen from the eyes of Muslim or Asian readers only affirms the image of western media as downplaying the misdoings of Israel and thus in support of the Zionist regime. And the NST article, on the other hand, may appear to champion the Palestinian cause and resort to blaming game and finding faults.

This situation is hardly surprising as the media often fails in providing objective and disinterested reporting.

Another related matter to address is the language. The arrangement and choice of words, as have been pointed out in earlier paragraphs, affect the tone and the message which the article carries.

The choice to use "intercept" or "first contact" over "attack" is not just a matter of literary option but a meticulous decision made to convey a point. The use of "intercept" denotes something more neutral and safe. Decide to go with "attack", then it means something more aggressive and antagonistic.

Another example of selective word usage can be seen in the description of the content of the ships. In the NST, the flotilla is said to be, "...carrying aid"; whereas in the NY Times, the cargo is described as, "...thousands of tons of supplies." In this second instance, the nature of the cargos is being differentiated in its degree of ‘sacredness’. What is meant by it is that, an attack on ships ferrying humanitarian aids is a breach of international law and of grave concern. But intercepting a cargo of supplies is an action, which is merely frowned upon.

A last example of how language is differently utilised in both the NST and the NY Times is the depiction of the destination of the flotilla – Gaza. The international flotilla is said to be transporting aid, "...to besieged Gaza" in the former article. But according to the latter, Israel will not allow the flotilla to, "...reach the shores of Gaza, where Islamic militant group Hamas holds sway". In the former, Gaza is under siege and that it is an occupied territory. But the words in the later indicate that the same territory is the land of armed rebels.

In terms of representation of relevant parties concerned, both newspapers have included a plurality of viewpoints in their reporting. The inclusion of many opinions and avoiding a monopoly of views help create a more balanced and fair reporting. Or does it? Plurality only means that there are more than one source being referred to or cited from. But as far as diversity is concerned, the plentiful of sources maybe similar and does not provide counter-arguments and thus a limited scope of reality.

Before the analysis on sources is continued, let’s have a look at the choice of sources quoted in the two articles. In the NST, Israel’s Channel 10 is cited from Xinhua news agency. Xinhua also reports on the injured victims being admitted to Rambam Medical Centre in Haifa, Israel and the ensuing statement of the hospital spokesman, David Ratner.

On top of that, the article also cites from Al-Jazeera news network. The network provides facts like where the attack transpired ("...international waters off the Gaza coast") and where the flotilla set sail from – Cyprus.

As for the NY Times, Kershner includes the report of one unnamed activists on one of the vessels to retell what has happened on board. She also cites from The Associated Press (AP) news agency, who themselves cite the number of casualties and injuries from two unspecified television stations. The article also provides an excerpt of the satellite phone conversation Huwaida Arraf, a Free Gaza Movement leader, had prior to the attack.

The choice of sources of the two newspapers is rather typical. The New York Times relied mostly on western news wire agency – The Associated Press. On the other hand, the New Straits Times chooses Asian news networks to cite from – Xinhua and Al-Jazeera. These choices reflect and uphold their respective brand of journalism, a clear case of east versus west.

Also worthy of note is the fact that neither newspaper has reports from their own correspondence. This could be because they have none stationed there. But if a report comes from in-house foreign correspondent, it can provide greater detail as correspondents of either the broadcast or print media’s job is to provide pertinent details from the site of news events.

It is of paramount importance that the matter of ownership is also addressed in regards to this issue. The NST is a newspaper under the banner of the Media Prima conglomerate. And one of Media Prima’s majority shareholder is Gabungan Kasturi Sdn Bhd, reportedly owned by Amanah Raya, a trust management company belonging wholly to the Malaysian government. On the other hand, the NY Times is a private company and has been in the control of the same family since 1890. Its current chairman is Arthur Ochs Sulzberger Jr.

Media Prima is known to be affiliated to the ruling Barisan Nasional government and has been known to further the agenda of the ruling government. In being pro-Palestine, the newspaper and therefore the government shall appease the public (especially the Malay Muslim majority) sentiments felt against Israel. On the other hand, the Sulzbergers is a Jewish family. Although that may not be enough evidence to implicate bias; Zelizer, Park and Gudelunas has this to say in their study of 3 mainstream newspapers in the U.S. including the New York Times, "Bias thus emerges as a far more embedded and complex dimension of U.S print journalism than commonly assumed in popular, if not in scholarly discourse."

After this LENGHTY presentation of facts, I'll cut right to the point - both newspapers have their own agendas to pursue. But if I have to choose which of the two is less...zealous, I'll go with NY Times. At least they tried to maintain appearance of balanced-reporting. Just my two cents worth.



Au revoir.