Momcilo Perisic Trial: Al Jazeera vs. Srebrenica Genocide Blog

When one thinks of a blog, arguably a few characteristics come to mind: colloquial, opinionated and emotional. Contrarily, when one thinks of a mainstream news source, a different set of qualities are associated: formal, unbiased and detached.

In light of this, it is interesting to analyze the "Srebrenica Genocide Blog." The blog is an almost database-style account of Serbian war crimes committed during the early 1990's in Yugoslavia. The commentary is implicit (unlike the stereotype of a blog), but glaring.

At the end of 2005, the blog wrote an account of the arrest of Momcilo Perisic, a former Serbian general currently on trial at the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia at the Hague. Rather than celebrating the arrest with passionate words about the horrors committed by Perisic, the blog breaks down the statistics like a score card: "Born," "Indictment," "Charges," "Trial" and a breakdown of the parties involved: Judges, Prosecutors, etc.

The closest the blog comes to condemning Perisic, are the following decidedly-benign statements: "These unlawful attacks caused death of at least seven civilians and at least 194 civilians were wounded" and "Perisic failed to initiate an inquiry into what role members of the 30th Personnel Centre of the VJ General Staff may have played in the commission of these crimes."


On its english website, Al Jazeera News, a mainstream source run out of the Middle East (Doha, Qatar), published a fairly typical news story about Momcilo Perisic's trial. The article appeared recently, on October 2, 2008, and could be considered an addendum to the blog's story. As expected, Al Jazeera's language is straightforward and unbiased. The significance of the story, Al Jazeera explains, is that Perisic's trial is possibly the strongest link that the ICTY has discovered between the late Serbian leader Slobodan Milosevic and the crimes committed in Bosnia and Croatia during the war.

Interestingly, though the blog's language is fairly tame, it's positions become clear through the statistics it claims: The Srebrenica massacre resulted "in summary executions of at least 8,372 men, children, and elderly Bosniaks, and UN-assisted ethnic cleansing of approximately 20,000 women." Al Jazeera, on the other hand, states that the Bosnian Serb forces killed "8,000 Muslim men and boys in the UN-protected region of Srebrenica in July 1995." The difference in language is significant, the blog insinuating that there were more deaths than 8,372 and that the United Nations was somehow complicit (a frequent charge.)

Nonetheless, the differences between the two stories are notable because it shows that, while a blog may present itself as a list of facts, it may have an agenda that shapes it in subtle ways. Al Jazeera, on the other hand, could probably not get away with the same claims. This illustrates how blogs, because they are accountable to no one but the author, may take advantage of this freedom.

Troopergate: Anchorage Daily News vs. The Mat-Su Valley Frontiersman blog

Alaska's biggest newspaper, The Anchorage Daily News reported today that Sarah Palin "abused power" in their online article entitled, "Investigator: Palin Abused Power."  The article, from Palin's home state, details her and her husband's use of the Governor's office to "advance a personal agenda, to wit: to get Trooper Michael Wooten fired." The article details with greater specificity Palin's misdeeds, which include the firing of her public safety commissioner, Walt Monegan, for, among other reasons, refusal to fire Wooten and the state attorney general's office failing "to substantially comply" with a request to Palin for e-mails about the case.

The Anchorage Daily article is lengthy and broken down into several sections including, "Trouble Goes Back For Years," which details a 2006 divorce between Wooten and Palin's sister, "Reactions are Divided," which describes the conflicting attitudes toward the scandal ("Who is going to blame Todd Palin for protecting his family?" said Rep. John Coghill, R-North Pole. "Not me.") and "Feedback for Complainants," which spells out the investigator report's advice to the complainants (presumably Palin) and future complainants to trust that the complaints are heeded and taken seriously and to avoid using state power (as Palin has.)

Notably, the article attempts to account for both sides of the conflict: quoting Palin's attorney, who referred to the investigation as a partisan attempt to "smear the governor by innuendo."

The Mat-Su Valley Frontiersman, which serves Palin's city of Wasilla, Alaska features a blog, called Wasila to the White House, on their website. The blog is written by Mat-Su Valley Staff writers and focus on Palin's ascendancy from Mayor of Wasila to Republican Vice Presidential Candidate. The blog's entry for Friday, October 10th, is titled "Troopergate report was in high demand." The brief article simply describes the press' excitement with the Investigation findings. It also details another story, written in the first person, which seems to criticize Sarah Palin for her secrecy with regard to sending emails about state business through a private Yahoo account.

I think this Wasilla-based blog indicates that blogs can be as equally unbiased as a mainstream news source. Still, the Frontiersman blog uses more informal expressions such as "The so-called Palin Truth Squad." This does not make it more subjective, but I think that a lack of formality runs a higher risk of losing credibility.

Sources:
http://www.adn.com/troopergate/story/552799.html
http://www.frontiersman.com/articles/2008/10/11/blogs/palin/doc48efdfb649096953197588.txt

Starbucks Wastes Water: The Guardian vs. The Creative Brainwaves of Anneka Tran

On Monday October 6th, it was reported by many mainstream news sources that Starbucks had wasted large amounts of water.

The left-leaning British Newspaper, The Guardian, published the story "Starbucks Wastes Millions of Litres of Water A Day" on their website, theguardian.co.uk.  The Guardian explains that this is the result of a practice of keeping water running during it's "dipper" method of cleaning.   The Guardian includes extraneous (though not unimportant) facts such as: "A single Starbucks tap left running for just over three minutes wastes the amount of water one African needs to survive for a day in drought conditions."

The Guardian's article is a bit more critical than one might expect from a mainstream news source.  Though it never explicitly states an opinion (as a blog might), all of the quotes are from "astonished" citizens, who are outraged at the "supposedly-green" Starbucks organization.  Furthermore, they cite Starbucks' controversial 2006 bid to stop Ethiopian farmers from copyrighting their coffee beans (the though article does explain that a more fair deal was reached.)

Although The Guardian explains briefly that Starbucks will amend it's water use and cleaning practices, the overall tilt of the article seems to be very critical of the coffee giant.  In addition to the Africa quote above, they write: "In the UK, Starbucks has 698 branches, each open for 13 hours a day. Even a slow tap flows three litres of water a minute, meaning Starbucks in the UK is wasting an estimated 1.63m litres a day – enough to supply Matlock village in Derbyshire." This information is not presented as a quote, but simply as fact and may be considered an unnecessary, if dubious, admission. 

In "Starbucks Wasting Water," a blog called The Creative Brainwaves, writes: "Today I was very surprised to read that Starbucks wastes over 23.4m litres of water a day, therefore prompting me to make a quick illustration about it too."

 

The first person account immediately indicates it's biased and less-professional nature.   There is no other text except a link to the Guardian article.  

The drawing that follows (above) is a fairly straightforward political cartoon that shows a Starbucks cup pouring out large drops of water with dollar signs on them.  The obvious interpretation is that Starbucks is wasting money by wasting water.  Whether or not the drawing implies that Starbucks is losing money because of the bad press it will receive in the wake of this story, is unclear.

It is interesting to note that The Guardian's story will likely elicit a more critical reaction to Starbucks than the blog's cartoon.  Perhaps this is due to the very simple nature of the cartoon, but I was surprised to note the harsh criticism of Starbucks indicated in the Guardian article.

Elections in Belarus: Boston Globe vs. Liberty Scott Blog

The Boston Globe's article US Keeps A Close Eye On Elections in Belarus describes the United States (and other International organizations) monitoring of the Presidential elections in Belarus.

The Boston Globe article details the broken relationship between the United States and Belarus, citing the pulling out of both Ambassadors from each country.    As one might expect, The Boston Globe addresses the situation in light of the recent conflict between Georgia and Russia and examines how this may affect Belarus as they attempt to democratize: "Alarmed at the vengeance with which Russia punished Georgia, The United States and the European Union have offered to repair ties with Belarus if Lukashenko makes good on his promises to ease political repression."

The article also explains that political prisoners have been released in Belarus and acknowledges that US officials are trying to understand what motivated the Belorussian government.  In addition to the article, there is a picture of some of the parliamentary candidates burning what appears to be a voter card, in protest of Lukashenko's barring of opposition candidates.

In "Liberty Scott," a blog from New Zealand, the article Belarus Has a Parliamentary Election describes the upcoming election with a decidedly more critical eye toward Belarus' internal repression. 

In the first sentence, the blog refers to Belarus as "Europe's last dictatorship" and provides snide remarks such as "I doubt he will be kidding anyone" in reference to Belarus claiming that it will hold a Western-style election. The blog concludes that "the chances of change in Belarus is next to zero."  

Additionally, the blog takes aim at the "state-run media" and declares that Belarus should not be rewarded for "democracy" (presumably using quotation marks sarcastically.)

Finally, the blog cites The Sunday Telegraph's article, which covers Belorussian (and more specifically Lukashenko's) oppression.  Unlike the Boston Globe article, there is no image accompanying the story.

 

Both articles indicate that Belarus is a strict and oppressive state but, as detailed above, the language they employ is significantly different.  The blog criticizes the government with ease, while The Boston Globe remains respectful even while describing heinous practices.

Sources:

libertyscott.blogspot.com

boston.com/bostonglobe

The Arrest of Radovan Karadzic: NY Times vs. "Finding Karadzic" blog

On July 22, 2008, it was reported that Radovan Karadzic, the former Bosnian Serb leader turned on-the-run war criminal, was arrested in Serbia.

The New York Times, in an article entitled "Bosnian Serb Under Arrest in War Crimes," published a lengthy article detailing the nature of Karadzic's alleged crimes and featured quotes from a Hague prosecutor, Serbian president Boris Tadic, a European Union official, Karadzic's wife and others.

True to form, the Times also referred to Karadzic, a man likely responsible for thousands of deaths, as "Mr. Karadzic."  (Clark Hoyt, the Times' public editor routinely discusses this formal custom)

On the blog, FindingKaradzic.blogspot.com, the headline to the same story was: WE GOT HIM!!    The blog post is very brief, summed up in seven sentences and written in the first person ("I started searching for Radovan Karadzic over six years ago.") 

The blog freely shares it's perspective (''the world is a better place") while the NY Times expresses this sentiment through quotes by officials (Richard Holbrooke: "This is a historic event.")  The blog implies that Karadzic is one of "the worst people in the world," while the NY Times consistently and simply states the charges against Karadzic.  The NY Times treats him as innocent until proven guilty while the blog celebrates the capture of a murderer.

Finally, tellingly, the blog refers to Radovan Karadzic as Karadzic.

Venezuelan Expulsions: NY Times vs. Venezuela 101 blog

Upon first glance, The New York Times' and the "Venezuela 101" blog's account of the recent expulsion of two human rights activists from Venezuela seem very similar.  With the exception of the form (the blog's story is in one single paragraph; the NY Times is in a standard news format), the stories were both written with the same formal style.

However, at the end of the Venezuela 101 story there is a link to a yahoo news site -- the source of the story.  Still, the blog does add its own touches that separate it from both Yahoo News and the NY Times:

1) the title of the blog's post is "Mandela?  Candela?" which is a reference to English "Chavista" Ken Livingston's comparison of Chavez to Mandela.

2) After the article, there is a picture of one of the activists and a picture of a character from the Jimmy Kimmel Show.  The men look similar and the blog's caption asks: "The Jimmy Kimmel Show's Guillermo?"

3) In response to the Mandela reference, the blogger writes: "Guess Kenny was talkin' bout Winnie 'Together hand-in-hand, with our boxes of matches and our necklaces, we shall liberate this country' Mandela'."

The NY Times' article is straightforward, dispensing the same facts as the Yahoo News (and therefore the Venezuela 101) story with no detectable commentary.   It is fairly brief at ten short paragraphs, features a small picture of the director of Human Rights Watch and a two minute video (which is a video link from Reuters.)

The most striking element of the blog's story is the casual nature of their inside jokes juxtaposed with the gravity of the expulsion story.  To compare a Human Rights Activist who was recently exiled from his country to a character on a late night talk show seems at best irrelevant and at worst insensitive.  Judging from the other posts on the Venezuela 101 blog, there is a clear attempt to create a personality that is both informative and cavalier, humorous and earnest.

The NY Times' online edition of the story reflects a blog, or at least a more modern news outlet, in its use of multimedia.  Still, the actual story -- both the content and the form -- remains formal and informative.  

Hurricane Ike: Daily Kos vs. BBC

The Daily Kos' report about the impeding Hurricane Ike storm begins, "Houston, you may have a problem."

The BBCnews' coverage of the same event begins, "Resident's in the US state of Texas have begun to evacuate as Hurricane Ike churns through the Gulf of Mexico."

While both stories are fairly brief, the main differences lie in the feeling of the immediacy created by the Daily Kos' article compared to the more straightforward tone of the BBC.

The Daily Kos' site is colloquial, authored by "Darksyde" and, at times, alarmist: "the economic costs alone...could potentially top 25 billion dollars." The BBC, however, which has no byline, takes a more formal approach, listing facts as opposed to speculation: "The US has pledged $10m (£5.7m) in aid to Haiti, where the UN estimates 800,000 people are in temporary shelters."

The Daily Kos gives information as if residents in need of help may be reading the site: "If you are in an evacuation zone or area of risk and need help getting out, dial 2-1-1." There is also a section, which reads: "What should Texas Residents Do?"

The BBC, on the other hand, informs residents through a more standard news approach -- quoting the mayor of Galveston urging residents to evacuate or stay at home depending on their location.

Finally, while the Daily Kos' focuses on the immediate effects of the storm, the BBC takes a more thorough approach to the story, commenting on the US' aid to Cuba (even noting the 4-decade embargo.) This passage shows a distinctly different style: the Daily Kos presents the story as providing a practical approach to those dealing currently with the storm. The BBC, however, views the storm in the context of world news.