Scientific or Biographic?

            This week I wanted to explore part of the New York Times that I’d never investigated before. After scanning the bar of categories on the website’s left-hand side, the heading, “Science” popped out at me.

            The first article was titled “Digging Deep into DNA” and a photo of the featured scientist, Dr. Hopi Hoekstra of Harvard University, with a tranquilized bear accompanied the headline. Interesting, I thought, and began to read. After a few paragraphs, I was surprised to find that the article described Dr. Hoekstra’s research on the effects of mouse DNA on burrow construction, not the DNA of bears. The Times used the picture of the bear to grab people’s attention and prompt them to read.

DNA

            Looking more closely at the article’s construction, the sourcing in “Digging Deep into DNA” impressed me while the lack of real scientific description disappointed. The Times reports about Dr. Hoekstra’s background of education and states that she received tenure from Harvard at age 37; clearly she is a qualified researcher. It continues to say that the well-respected scientific journal, Nature, published her discovery that four areas of DNA influence the burrow construction of mice.

Dr. Hopi Hoekstra

From this point on, however, scientific discussion drops out of the article and Dr. Hoekstra’s biography begins. The section following the brief overview of her research is titled “From Volleyball to Research” and outlines Dr. Hopi Hoekstra’s journey from high school to college to filed work. The first line of this section stated, “Dr. Hoekstra spends a lot of time explaining that her first name has nothing to do with the Native American Hopi tribe.” Hopi was apparently a nickname from her grandmother that stuck, but How does this relate to science? I wondered. The next and final section headed, “A Team Player” demonstrates Dr. Hoekstra’s willingness to engage graduate students in her research and reach out to interested scientists. Again, is this science? In my biology 570 class, I need to write a scientific research paper on a Multiple Sclerosis. The paper must elaborate on the chemical, molecular and cellular effects of MS as well as its impact on tissues, organ complexes, and on the entire body. We must write with interesting, well-researched accuracy that a History or English major could understand. If I stated that MS is an autoimmune disease that demyelinates nerve axons and then wrote the biography of an expert in MS immunology, my teacher would not consider this a scientific piece. A 1 would loom in my future.

The Time’s “Science” section disappointed me with the lack of actual scientific description. While I learned briefly about Dr. Hoekstra’s research from credible sources, I felt that I was reading a biography, which does not constitute science.

Links:
"Digging Deep into DNA"
Here's another "scientific" article. The author cites "Studies" as his scientific source. "That Daily Shower Can Be a Killer"

Real Sources, Please!

Because of my group's presentation about Manti Te'o, I've focused on news about this athlete. The basic story is this: Manti Te'o is an excellent college football player for Notre Dame. In September, Manti's grandmother and girlfriend died on the same day, and right after, Te'o played a phenomenal game leading the Fighting Irish to an upset victory over Michigan State. Fans flocked to support Te'o in his difficult time of mourning only to learn in December that Te'o's girlfriend never existed. This news spawned a flurry of media coverage, and each newspaper printed entertaining and intriguing but under-researched reports about Te'o's story. One aspect of the reporting that struck me most was the lack of reliable sourcing.

On January 23rd, USA Today published an article titled, "Manti Te'o admits lying; phone records reportedly support story." When I read about Manti's phone records, I quickly realized this piece of the story, salient enough to include in the headline, had no reliable source. The article states that "a person close to Manti Te'o" gave ESPN's Jeremy Schaap his phone records from the period of time he supposedly knew Lennay Kekua, the fake girlfriend. Directly after this paragraph, USA Today adds a line saying that Schaap conducted a two-and-a-half-hour interview with Te'o, which lends credibility to Schaap and the phone records given to him. The next paragraph describes the phone record stating that Te'o made and received more than 1,000 calls to and from a number in the LA area where Kekua was supposedly fighting Leukemia. USA Today presents this information about the phone records confidently and factually, but the next line annihilates the validity of the previous paragraphs. After building up the phone records as a true, reliable source, the article states, "ESPN said the veracity of the documents could not be independently confirmed." Even though USA Today knows the phone records are plausibly false, it propagates them as fact.

This article also includes Brian Te'o, Manit's father, and the football coach of the man who supposedly created the fake girlfriend as sources. First Brian Te'o is quoted vouching for his son's integrity by claiming, "he's not a liar. He's a kid."As Manti's father, Brian is tightly wound into his son's scandal and wants to defend and protect Manti. He is automatically biased toward Manti and his words supporting Manti aren't completely reliable. To better ascertain how truthful Manti is, it would be necessary to speak with his professors, coaches, teammates, friends and neighbors. Brian's words alone cannot prove that Manti has integrity. After citing Brian and talking about Manti, USA Today discusses the man, Ronaiah Tuiasosopo, who created Kekua. The article surprisingly uses the 22 year old's high school football coach as the "expert" on Tuiasosopo. USA Today reports that the coach, Jon Flemming, said Tuiasosopo is "somebody I'd want my kid to grow up like. He's responsible, respectful, disciplined, dedicated." Vouching for Tuiasosopo in this situation is generous because according to the article, the last time Flemming had significant contact with Tuiasosopo was four years ago.Tuiasosopo certainly changed while transitioning form teenager to young adult, so this source is outdated and invalid. The sources USA Today used to vouch for Manti's and Tuiasosopo's characters were unreliable.

Throughout this report on Te'o, USA Today constructs its arguments based on a shaky foundation of untrustworthy sources.

USA Today Article

NYT Taking Sides

Mr. Obama's inauguration is obviously newsworthy. He will lead our country through the next four years of rehabilitating the economy, creating foreign relations, and tackling security controversies like gun control. While Mr. Obama delivers his inaugural speech across the National Mall and looks down of the thousands of people waving American flags, he is unlikely to spy a Republican in the midst. The New York Times article, "As Droves Flock to Washington, Republicans Find Reasons to Leave", describes how many Republicans plan to spend their inaugural weekend in Las Vagas. Just by observing the large photo hovering above the article, it is clear that The Times disapproves of this decision.

"Lisa and Charlie Spies planned a trip to Las Vegas for the weekend for nearly 100 Republicans" (New York Times).

This photo portrays the Republican Party as irresponsible and decadent. The picture's caption and the view outside the hotel room window inform readers that Republicans left Washington D.C. to avoid inauguration weekend. Lisa Spies, the woman in the picture, laughs with her mouth wide open conveying a care free attitude. Since she and her husband, a Republican lawyer The Times reports supported Mr. Romney, are skipping the inaugural ceremonies, her expression seems to reflect her sentiments about Mr. Obama's importance, or unimportance. Charlie Spies laughs along with her, and the picture communicates that they view the new presidency too lightly. "They think it's a joke!" says The Times photo.

Decadence also permeates this picture. The two gilded conch shells, the tan couch and matching studded footrest, the golden swirled carpet, and Spies' executive desk chair suggest luxury. The picture shows that Republicans are not only skipping the inauguration, they are spending frivolously in the gambling capitol of the world, Las Vagas. Furthermore, the Spies wear business clothing and Lisa's apparently diamond rings clearly show. Two presents also sit on the desk, which, aside from the fact that they are in Las Vagas, implies the two are spending money.

The Times scorns Republicans avoiding the inauguration by posting this picture above the article, "Droves Flock to Washington, Republicans Find Reasons to Leave."

Further Inauguration Source:
Interested in the inauguration and how The Times caters to the Internet? Check out these short interviews about what people from the D.C. area hope Obama will do this term.
Thoughts for a Second-Term President

Britain v. America

The Hill article link
BBC article link

While browsing BBC’s economy section, I found an article describing the current trade conflict between the United States and Indonesia. Basically, Indonesia implemented stringent importation rules that limit the US’s market for meat and produce. I decided to explore the differences between a British and an American report about this trade conflict by comparing articles in BBC and The Hill, an American paper oriented toward business and politics.

I started analyzing the British source by reading the light gray headline typed over the article. “US takes Indonesia to WTO over import restrictions,” it announced. The tone of BBC’s headline was objective, factual, and unemotional. It functioned to summarize how the US is handling the trade scruple. In contrast, The Hill labeled its article by stating, “US picks trade fight with Indonesia.” The tone here is distinct because the personification of the United States implies that America will toil to restore a more advantageous trading relationship. The Hill didn’t merely state facts like BBC, it asserted that the US is taking deliberate action to regain importation rights. When I thought about this headline in relation to Manufacturing Consent’s theory that the government mediates news, the wording, “US picks trade fight” puzzled me. Picking a fight is immature and unnecessarily provocative. From reading Chomsky and Herman’s introduction, I thought the news would shine a better light on the US government to preserve the media’s own interest. I imagined it would print a headline such as “US forced into trade fight with Indonesia.” The word “forced” would validate the US taking Indonesia to the WTO and portray the government as the victim of Indonesian policy instead of the attacker. Stating that the “US picks trade fight” does, however, demonstrate that the American government is assertive, which may have been the goal of this headline.

Reading further revealed that BBC continued writing more objectively while The Hill began to portray the American government in a better light. Both articles quoted Ron Kirk, a “US Trade Representative” (BBC) that Chomsky and Herman would argue people automatically trust. Newspapers are businesses and strive to cut costs, so they do not frequently investigate an expert’s statement. This practice has lead to printed fallacies. It is also important to note that this expert works for the government, which influences how he communicates the trade problem to the press. In their articles, BBC and The Hill used slightly different excerpts from Kirk’s statement about trade tensions. Both included that "Indonesia's opaque and complex import licensing system affects a wide range of American and agricultural exports." Both also quoted Kirk's statement that "It has become a serious impediment to U.S. agricultural exports entering Indonesia, reducing Indonesian consumer's access to high-quality U.S. products."The critical difference is that BBC stopped quoting Kirk here. The Hill, however, continued to cite him saying, "The Obama Administration is committed to protecting the rights of our growers, farmers, ranchers and processors.... we will fight to support each hob here at home affected by unfair restrictions abroad." This makes sense, I thought. Of course American news would emphasize that the American government is fighting to preserve American jobs and thereby the American dream. Considering Manufacturing Consent’s description of the close ties between the media and the government, it is very plausible that The Hill does itself a favor by publishing praise about the White House. Kirk’s quote about the Obama Administration’s work toward trade and job justice is not an essential piece of information about the United State’s relation with Indonesia. Thus BBC does not include it. On the other hand, The Hill may include it to pacify the public and sway them in favor of the government.

The British and American renditions about the US trade situation with Indonesia are distinct. While BBC reports quite objectively, The Hill writes with more emotion and passion. Chomsky and Herman’s theory about sourcing mass-media news, however, is evident in both articles. Both pull information from an expert, Kirk, to avoid the costly process of researching the issue. Concerning government influence, The Hill’s article favors the US government’s approach to tackling trade issues much more than BBC. The articles support Manufacturing Consent’s idea that the media is influenced and biased by outside forces.

Representing Mali

The song I listened to while writing my blog today:)

Today the Times cover photo and corresponding story about the military coup in Mali caught my attention.

An intriguing aspect of the piece was the cover photo. One glance told me it depicted a military movement of some sort. Military happenings are prime areas from which to harvest newsworthy material because they relate to the public’s safety and the county’s global influence. Thus a military event, especially one dealing with extreme Islamists like in this article, is a newsworthy morsel.

The cover picture showing a ring of officers in camouflage also helps define what is newsworthy. On the most superficial level, military personnel grab the public’s attention. Whether walking through Logan airport or shown in a photo on the cover of the Times, people in uniform standout. Their clothes signify that their job is important to the wellbeing of the entire country, which draws attention and commands respect. Digging deeper into the photo, all but one soldier is white, and the viewer only sees the back of the one black soldier’s head and ears. Additionally nine out of ten soldiers appear to be under thirty. There are no women in the picture. Repeatedly seeing young, white men in powerful positions can send a subliminal message that youthful, fair skinned people possess power.

Moving from looking at the cover photo to reading, one line especially popped out at me. The article surprisingly said, “A confidential internal review completed last July by the Pentagon’s Africa Command concluded that the coup had unfolded too quickly… to detect any clear warning sings.” Taking in these words, I had to question how the Times had obtained information about this “confidential internal review.” If this information were true, how could the Times publish it? It’s “confidential,” right? Reading about this government secret reminded me of Chomsky and Herman’s theory that the government exercises great influence over the media. Maybe the government wanted the Times to publish this “internal review” to explain and partially excuse the US military’s failed attempt to control Mali.

The Time’s cover photo helps define what is newsworthy but the newspaper sharing “confidential” government information seems suspicious.