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.