This story, if you have been living under a rock, or do not follow international politics, has been brewing for quite a long time. The people of Ukraine had been unsatisfied with their government for quite a while. When the general attitude within a governed population is that their government does not serve them but itself, a social revolution is bound to happen. In this case, Ukrainians ousted the Yanukovych regime in power (which had been manipulating the economic system nepotistically). The protests began in November. Tension reached a head as violent clashes between the military and revolutionary forces happened, and the president stepped down. The United States was ambivalent about getting involved (I thought we loved to spread Democracy?) and as a result, Russia, who has historically owned the Crimea section of Ukraine, began clandestinely amassing troops to "liberate" (where have we heard that before?) the Russian-speaking population there. A referendum was held on March 16th, and apparently 97% of Crimeans voted in favor of joining the Russian Federation. Many have alleged that some sort of vote manipulation may have occurred, and the United States and European Union have denounced the vote as illegitimate.
I chose this story because of its cultural and geopolitical relevance and because I like the parallel between 21st century United States military aggression and the current actions of Putin's Russia. Why should we as a country divine ourselves World Police? Are we really so ethnocentric as to believe that our moral views should be imbued upon the rest of the world?
These articles were found in very different sources, so obviously the biases and content within is all very different as well. I also made sure to take each source from a different section of its containing issue. This was meant to illustrate that it is not just scope of audience within the overall population which matters, because the scope of audience relative to the sections of a newspaper is also relevant. Somebody reading a story published in the Economic/Money section of the paper is going to read something far different, with far different biases, than somebody reading a front page story, or an opinion piece, for that matter.
No media form is without bias. But some stories are reported on as objectively as possible, while some are published to purposefully illustrate a slant or perspective on an issue.
In the case of the Washington Post front page story, the article I read was entitled, "Russia nears full control in Crimea with fall of base." This article read almost like a fictional story with its descriptive language and in-the-moment description of current goings-on overseas. However, since it was on the front page of the Washington Post, authors Carol Morello and Will Englund should have tried to make it as objective as possible, in my opinion (paradoxical, I know). They did not. Subjective words like 'most' and 'overwhelmingly' litter this piece. The writing is excellent, and the content is relevant to the audience. A funny note to illustrate the bias/lowest common denomination appeal to readers which is typical of the Washington Post in recent years is this: The subhead for this article reads 'UKRAINIAN TROOPS ARMED WITH STICKS'. It goes to show how developed, 'first-world' countries see the countries they 'liberate' - as heathen savages with an inability to create social change themselves.
A big part of the reason for the onset of the protests and subsequent conflict in Crimea is the nepotism and oligopolistic economic model which had been in place in Ukraine previously. President Yanukovych and his family, particularly his son, had helped themselves and their minions to full control over entire economic segments, and many in Crimea hoped for free-market capitalism to be sure. As usual, though, when money is the instigating factor for action, people become commodities.
The Associated Press article I read in the Reading Eagle was entitled "Weather, political instability spur wheat prices." This article covered the story from an economic angle, and instead of focusing on the human aspect of the conflict going on, seemed to reflect on the conflict as it will affect American consumers. The language and content in it seemed pretty objective, but how objective can you be when you value a contrivance such as money over human life?
The final 'article' I read was a short opinion piece in the Morning Call. This was entitled, "Annexing Crimea evokes U.S. Manifest Destiny. I think it's pretty clear from the title and placement within the paper what the bias in this essay is, and as I said before, I agree with its author regarding the United States' "boundless hypocrisy."
I chose this story because of its cultural and geopolitical relevance and because I like the parallel between 21st century United States military aggression and the current actions of Putin's Russia. Why should we as a country divine ourselves World Police? Are we really so ethnocentric as to believe that our moral views should be imbued upon the rest of the world?
These articles were found in very different sources, so obviously the biases and content within is all very different as well. I also made sure to take each source from a different section of its containing issue. This was meant to illustrate that it is not just scope of audience within the overall population which matters, because the scope of audience relative to the sections of a newspaper is also relevant. Somebody reading a story published in the Economic/Money section of the paper is going to read something far different, with far different biases, than somebody reading a front page story, or an opinion piece, for that matter.
No media form is without bias. But some stories are reported on as objectively as possible, while some are published to purposefully illustrate a slant or perspective on an issue.
In the case of the Washington Post front page story, the article I read was entitled, "Russia nears full control in Crimea with fall of base." This article read almost like a fictional story with its descriptive language and in-the-moment description of current goings-on overseas. However, since it was on the front page of the Washington Post, authors Carol Morello and Will Englund should have tried to make it as objective as possible, in my opinion (paradoxical, I know). They did not. Subjective words like 'most' and 'overwhelmingly' litter this piece. The writing is excellent, and the content is relevant to the audience. A funny note to illustrate the bias/lowest common denomination appeal to readers which is typical of the Washington Post in recent years is this: The subhead for this article reads 'UKRAINIAN TROOPS ARMED WITH STICKS'. It goes to show how developed, 'first-world' countries see the countries they 'liberate' - as heathen savages with an inability to create social change themselves.
A big part of the reason for the onset of the protests and subsequent conflict in Crimea is the nepotism and oligopolistic economic model which had been in place in Ukraine previously. President Yanukovych and his family, particularly his son, had helped themselves and their minions to full control over entire economic segments, and many in Crimea hoped for free-market capitalism to be sure. As usual, though, when money is the instigating factor for action, people become commodities.
The Associated Press article I read in the Reading Eagle was entitled "Weather, political instability spur wheat prices." This article covered the story from an economic angle, and instead of focusing on the human aspect of the conflict going on, seemed to reflect on the conflict as it will affect American consumers. The language and content in it seemed pretty objective, but how objective can you be when you value a contrivance such as money over human life?
The final 'article' I read was a short opinion piece in the Morning Call. This was entitled, "Annexing Crimea evokes U.S. Manifest Destiny. I think it's pretty clear from the title and placement within the paper what the bias in this essay is, and as I said before, I agree with its author regarding the United States' "boundless hypocrisy."
