Starting with The Washington Post, I was taken on somewhat of a roller coaster of thought/emotion because of the twists and turns the authors took when writing their article, "St. Louis area braces for aftershock of grand jury's decision on Ferguson shooting." Right off the bat, upon merely reading the title of the article, one feels a sensation of fear or anticipation due to the wording, "braces for aftershock." When one is bracing for aftershock it is because something serious is about to happen, some storm is on the way and the potential recipients must prepare for it. Adding onto this sensation of fear and anticipation are phrases such as, "It's that decision [of the jury] that has brought St. Louis into a bizarre holding pattern," "Ferguson . . . is prepared for chaos," and "Once the grand jury announcement is made, protest leaders will send a blast text message to a list of 16,000 subscribers - mobilizing them into action across the country." These quotations, such as the first, either emit a sense of suspense due to the lack of knowledge in regards to what will happen in the city, or they somewhat instill a sense of panic/fear as demonstrated through the subsequent two quotes. There is also a mention of the Klu Klux Klan in the article, stating that they will use "lethal force" to combat "threats of violence" that protesters have allegedly made towards police and communities.
But despite all this talk of fear and imbeciles in cone-headed sheets, there is a small twist of hope, of assurance that the situation will get better. The article states, "In this case, there has been plenty of advanced planning time. This has allowed protest leaders and police to draw up some rules of engagement that could keep a cap on tensions." It's rather odd that set amid this language that seemingly radiates nothing but scary feelings, is language that offers hope or a brighter look ahead for the situation in Ferguson, it claims that this time around there won't be as many conflicts between protesters and police.
Now, as for ABC News and their article, "Civic Group: No Ferguson Grand Jury Decision Yet," it was far shorter than The Washington Post's and was pretty much a mere summary, a condensed version of it. The article didn't really use language to convey anything aside from a very minuscule sense of suspense with their title, emitting the feeling that the whole Ferguson situation is still up in the air and not settled. Otherwise, it just turned out to be basic reporting.
The one major difference that I did notice, however, was the wording that both news sources used for a quote by Mike Brown's mother, Lesley McSpadden. One would think that a quote can only be written one way, that it cannot be tampered with or skewed, for it's supposed to be exactly what the person said. Nonetheless, both news agencies presented the same quote, but in a different manner. The The Washington Post wrote in their article, "'I love you all,' she said. 'It's a long time coming, but it's still coming . . . justice. I just want you all to be careful. Don't agitate the police, don't let the police agitate you. I don't want any of you to get hurt. When I get into court, I want all of you with me.'" With this quote, we get a picture of McSpadden. She sounds like a kind, loving, and peaceful women because of how the quote is presented, using proper English, avoiding the usage of double negatives, sharing an emotional moment with the protestors and such. But in the ABC News article it goes, "'Don't agitate them [the police], and don't let them agitate ya'll,' she said. 'I don't want nobody getting hurt. We're all willing to do something, but I don't want nobody getting hurt.'" The idea behind both quotes is the same, but with this second one, ABC's article, a reader will get an image of McSpadden that is somewhat different from the image presented by The Washington Post. Her words are now presented with the usage of "ya'll" as well as two double negatives, both of which are generally frowned upon in the English language and are categorized as "ghetto." And whether we'd like to admit it or not, we know deep inside that we are usually judgmental of people who talk in this manner. We as a society don't care to hear them as we would care to hear the words used in The Washington Post's quote, and in many cases we look down upon them because of their speech. Although a sad idea, it is pretty much true. As to which news source truly got the quote right, no one really knows. Perhaps both sides are incorrect and they're only trying to evoke certain thoughts within us. Interesting how language can be manipulated in such a way.
Through the way that news agencies use their language, through the words they pick to describe the events they cover, they try to implement their feelings and thoughts within us.
Link for The Washington Post's article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/st-louis-area-braces-for-aftershock-of-ferguson-shooting-grand-jury-decision/2014/11/22/f0615786-7263-11e4-ad12-3734c461eab6_story.html
Link for the ABC News article: http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/official-ferguson-grand-jury-meeting-2709866
But despite all this talk of fear and imbeciles in cone-headed sheets, there is a small twist of hope, of assurance that the situation will get better. The article states, "In this case, there has been plenty of advanced planning time. This has allowed protest leaders and police to draw up some rules of engagement that could keep a cap on tensions." It's rather odd that set amid this language that seemingly radiates nothing but scary feelings, is language that offers hope or a brighter look ahead for the situation in Ferguson, it claims that this time around there won't be as many conflicts between protesters and police.
Now, as for ABC News and their article, "Civic Group: No Ferguson Grand Jury Decision Yet," it was far shorter than The Washington Post's and was pretty much a mere summary, a condensed version of it. The article didn't really use language to convey anything aside from a very minuscule sense of suspense with their title, emitting the feeling that the whole Ferguson situation is still up in the air and not settled. Otherwise, it just turned out to be basic reporting.
The one major difference that I did notice, however, was the wording that both news sources used for a quote by Mike Brown's mother, Lesley McSpadden. One would think that a quote can only be written one way, that it cannot be tampered with or skewed, for it's supposed to be exactly what the person said. Nonetheless, both news agencies presented the same quote, but in a different manner. The The Washington Post wrote in their article, "'I love you all,' she said. 'It's a long time coming, but it's still coming . . . justice. I just want you all to be careful. Don't agitate the police, don't let the police agitate you. I don't want any of you to get hurt. When I get into court, I want all of you with me.'" With this quote, we get a picture of McSpadden. She sounds like a kind, loving, and peaceful women because of how the quote is presented, using proper English, avoiding the usage of double negatives, sharing an emotional moment with the protestors and such. But in the ABC News article it goes, "'Don't agitate them [the police], and don't let them agitate ya'll,' she said. 'I don't want nobody getting hurt. We're all willing to do something, but I don't want nobody getting hurt.'" The idea behind both quotes is the same, but with this second one, ABC's article, a reader will get an image of McSpadden that is somewhat different from the image presented by The Washington Post. Her words are now presented with the usage of "ya'll" as well as two double negatives, both of which are generally frowned upon in the English language and are categorized as "ghetto." And whether we'd like to admit it or not, we know deep inside that we are usually judgmental of people who talk in this manner. We as a society don't care to hear them as we would care to hear the words used in The Washington Post's quote, and in many cases we look down upon them because of their speech. Although a sad idea, it is pretty much true. As to which news source truly got the quote right, no one really knows. Perhaps both sides are incorrect and they're only trying to evoke certain thoughts within us. Interesting how language can be manipulated in such a way.
Through the way that news agencies use their language, through the words they pick to describe the events they cover, they try to implement their feelings and thoughts within us.
Link for The Washington Post's article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/st-louis-area-braces-for-aftershock-of-ferguson-shooting-grand-jury-decision/2014/11/22/f0615786-7263-11e4-ad12-3734c461eab6_story.html
Link for the ABC News article: http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/official-ferguson-grand-jury-meeting-2709866
No comments:
Post a Comment