Plagiarism has been a serious issue in the world of art, literature, music, and media. It can entail social and financial consequences as well as ruin one’s reputation forever. One of the notorious cases of plagiarism is the Jason Blair scandal that happened in 2003. Jayson Blair, a New York Times reporter, has turned the newspaper’s staff and readers’ perception of journalism upside down. He had “plagiarized material from other media, fabricated information, lied about his whereabouts when on assignment, broken promises of confidentiality to sources, and otherwise generally violated some of the basic standards of reporting” (Hindman, 2005, p. 225).
The reporter’s violation of journalism’s ethical standards put New York Times in a situation where they had to either present this incident to their audience as something out of the ordinary or completely rebuild their journalistic paradigm. In his interview with Duke students in 2016, Blair opened up about his plagiarism and claimed that there was not a single concrete reason for what he did. As he stated, “it was just a perfect storm of events” (Kwai, 2016, para. 8).
Blair also recalls that he “was too arrogant”, which it almost blinded him and made him succumb to plagiarism (Kwai, 2016, para. 14). It is also known that Blair suffered from “undiagnosed bipolar disorder” as well as “severe drug and alcohol addiction”, which might have “added fuel to an up-and-down cycle of plagiarizing and fabricating” (Kwai, 2016, para. 10). However, he does not use those issues as an excuse for what he did and still feels sorry and guilty after all these years. Jayson Blair’s story proves that journalism cannot function without honesty, originality, and trust.
Another example of real-world plagiarism is Melania Trump’s speech at the Republican National Convention in 2016. It was painfully evident that Melania repeated the speech Michelle Obama gave at the Democratic National Convention in 2008 almost word for word. Later, Melania’s speechwriter Meredith McIver took responsibility for the plagiarism. Although McIver meant no harm to Melania or Michelle, this incident caused chaos in the media and received plenty of backlashes.
References
Hindman, E. B. (2005). Jayson Blair, The New York Times, and Paradigm Repair. Journal of Communication, 55(2), 225–241. Web.
Kwai, I. (2016). Why he did it: Jayson Blair opens up about his plagiarism and fabrication at the New York Times. The Reporters’ Lab. Web.
The New York Times vs. Sullivan case was a landmark ruling from the United States (US) Supreme Court which defined the standards to be met before an individual claims defamation or libel from a media house (Anthony 3). In this regard, it allowed for the reporting of civil rights campaigns in America, or in general terms, the freedom of expression for the media.
The derived standards defined defamation cases as evident where a media entity perpetrates false information knowingly or if it can be affirmed that factual information was played around with to perpetrate falsehoods against a public official (Anthony 3).
Events that led to the hearing of the New York times vs. Sullivan case saw the piling of court cases amounting to million of dollars where individuals sued the press for libel. Due to this situation, the press at the time was exercising a lot of caution in reporting sensitive stories relating to individual entities (Anthony 4). However, when the New York Times prevailed in the case, many media houses restored their confidence in reporting civil rights campaigns at the South.
This conclusion was reached after the New York Times mounted a good defense against Sullivan; claiming that organizations and individuals were out to curtail media freedom as they upheld illegal activities while supporting segregation of the people (Hensley 168). This study therefore notes that the New York Times made a huge leap in advocating for freedom of speech for the press through its triumph in the Sullivan case.
Background on the Case
The New York Times case was preceded by actions by the newspaper agency to publish a full-page story in support of Martin Luther King Junior who was facing indictment in the state of Alabama. The article was titled “Heed their Rising Voices” and highlighted the plight of civil right protestors in the hands of law enforcement officers in Alabama and Montgomery (Lamoureux 191).
Though the article refrained from naming individuals, it was alleged that the New York Times defamed the Alabama law enforcement agency by wrongly criticizing its actions. However, the Alabama law denied a public officer from being rewarded damages arising from libel (from the publication of the report) and instead demanded that an officer should make a public claim against New York Times if he/she was to be compensated (Lamoureux 191).
This guideline prompted S. L. Sullivan to sue New York Times for libel. Instead of retracting, the New York Times (cited in Burnett) responded by stating:
“we … are somewhat puzzled as to how you think the statements in any way reflect on you,” and “you might, if you desire, let us know in what respect you claim that the statements in the advertisement reflect on you” (116).
Instead of responding to the newspaper agency, Sullivan went ahead with his suit and even included four African American ministers in the case as part of the conspiracy to defame his name. Surprisingly, he was awarded half a million dollars worth of damages by the Alabama court (Lamoureux 191).
Later, the New York Times was forced to retract statements on its article which made reference to Alabama’s governor but it interestingly never did the same for Sullivan. When asked why they made such an action, the officials to the Newspaper agency responded by saying:
“We did that because we didn’t want anything that was published by the Times to be a reflection on the State of Alabama and the Governor was, as far as we could see, the embodiment of the State of Alabama and the proper representative of the state and, furthermore, we had by that time learned more of the actual facts which the ad purported to recite and, finally, the ad did refer to the action of the state authorities and the Board of Education presumably of which the Governor is the ex-officio chairman….” (Lamoureux 191).
The officials further affirmed their previous stand by reiterating that they did not think Sullivan was in any way mentioned in the report. Nonetheless, the Times however appealed to the Supreme Court for further hearing and it was established that the Alabama court made the earlier judgment of awarding damages to Sullivan in deficiency of constitutional rights which safeguarded the freedom of speech outlined in the 1st and 4th Amendments. Considering the evidence brought forward in the case, Sullivan’s argument could not be sustained (Kellermann 212).
Effects on Future Rulings
The New York Times vs. Sullivan case introduced the term “actual malice” before any case can be proved as a case of defamation or libel. This therefore implied that in all future rulings where a public official claimed defamation or libel, he/she ought to prove that there was some sense of recklessness in carrying out investigations, or that there was no investigation at all on the information published by the press (Kellermann 212).
This ruling redefined the ordinary meaning of malicious intent which was previously quoted by many officials to support their cases against the press. In the court ruling, Justice Black affirmed that:
“‘malice,’ even as defined by the Court, is an elusive, abstract concept, hard to prove and hard to disprove. The requirement that malice be proved provides at best an evanescent protection for the right critically to discuss public affairs and certainly does not measure up to the sturdy safeguard embodied in the First Amendment” (Kellermann 212).
However, it should not be assumed that the term “malice” was a newly coined term in the action against libel or defamation because in many jurisdictions (including Alabama) the term “actual malice” had to be proved before any damages were to be awarded.
However, it was quite difficult to prove any malicious intentions on the part of any writer but the argument still stood that only malicious people had the intention of publishing false information; thereby constituting acts of libel or defamation(Kellermann 212). This ruling set the precedent for subsequent cases seen from the example of Hoeppner v. Dunkirk Printing Co., 254 N.Y. 95 (1930) (cited on Forde 246) where the Supreme court made an almost similar ruling by stating that:
“The plaintiff alleges that this criticism of him and of his work was not fair and was not honest; it was published with actual malice, ill will and spite. If he establishes this allegation, he has made out a cause of action. No comment or criticism, otherwise libelous, is fair or just comment on a matter of public interest if it be made through actual ill will and malice”. (246)
It can therefore be assumed that from the Sullivan case, the press found a new meaning of the term “actual malice” because a new constitutional significance was born to safeguard the freedom of speech which was usually neglected by previous court rulings.
Also, In the case of Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts, 388 U.S. 130 (1967), the Supreme Court affirmed standards set by the 1st amendment of the American Constitution resulting form lawsuits filed by private individuals because it was held by the court that since the press was safeguarded from liabilities arising from allegations by public officials on printing defaming material, they are still not immune from lawsuits filed on cases that can prove they acted in neglect of the truth (Devol 307).
However, in the case of Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46 (1988), where a fundamental protestant Minister, Jerry Falwell, sued for emotional distress; based on the precedent set by the New York Vs. Sullivan case (regarding actual malice); Hustler magazine published an article talking about incestuous acts between Falwell’s mother and him.
The US Supreme court ruled that according to the free speech guarantee outlined in the 1st amendment, it was not lawful to award damages to public figures for emotional distress whether it was inflicted on them intentionally or not (Menez 311).
It was later affirmed that Hustler magazine’s parody on the minister was not unlawful and therefore Jerry was not in a position to demand for damages which were already awarded to him by a previous jury ruling amounting to $200,000 (Menez 311). This was because the Supreme Court ruled that there was little chance that reasonable people could have termed the parody by Hustler magazine on Jerry Falwell as factual (Menez 311).
However, In the Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., 497 U.S. 1 (1990), the extent to which the press could go to exercise their freedom of free speech (first allowed in the New York Times vs. Sullivan case) was later redefined. In fact, some observers note that the Mikovich case marked the end of an era started by the Sullivan case (Zirkel 127).
Nonetheless, the Milkovich case led to the unanimous ruling that a separate opinion privilege existed against libel because the Supreme Court went to extreme lengths to clarify the range and scope of what could be said by the press, without the fear of being held libelous (Zirkel 127).
From the case, it was widely held by many observers and experts alike that according to the 1st amendment, it was highly unlikely that the recognition of false ideas as incumbent in the case would be recognized. It was however very surprising to the observers and experts when the court ruled that there were already enough safeguards erected by the law to safeguard free speech without recognizing opinion privileges on libelous acts (Zirkel 127).
In close comparison, the Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co. case seemed to differ slightly from the Sullivan case but the Westmoreland v. CBS case of 1982 seemed to reaffirm the previous ruling of the Sullivan case.
The case was filed by a US army chief of staff who sued CBS News for libel on a story titled “The Uncounted Enemy: A Vietnam Deception” (in line with the New York vs. Sullivan landmark case) but it was held that the government ought to uphold a high standard of proof before it could curtail the freedom of the press to publish any material; since it would be a violation of the 1st amendment (Clurman 104).
International Comparison
The New York vs. Sullivan case has not been widely endorsed in most international rulings as previously expected by most observers. The Hill vs. Church of Scientology of Toronto case of 1995 in Canada is a classic example of such deviation from the American Supreme court ruling on acts of Libel.
The Hill vs. Church of Scientology case was interpreted by the Canadian Supreme Court according to the Canadian Charter of Rights and freedoms which were a deviation from the “actual malice” standard precedent set by the New York vs. Sullivan case (Dyzenhaus 416).
The Hill case involved a church Lawyer by the name Morris Manning who alleged that Hill, who worked for a local law firm misled a judge and failed to seal certain documents that pertained to Scientology in a previous case (Dyzenhaus 416).
However, even amid all the accusations against Hill, it was later established that the accusations against Hill was unfounded but quite interesting, Hill launched a claim against the appellants for libel.
It was later established that the appellants had a case to answer including scientology as its own independent entity. In this regard, the appellants were entitled to pay hill C$ 300,000 and Scientology was also to pay the plaintiff C$ 500,000 for aggravated damages in addition to C$ 800,000 for further punitive damages through the affirming of a 1983 decision by the Court of Appeal of Ontario (Dyzenhaus 416).
All factors withstanding, the major bone of contention in the case was whether the common law of defamation was valid in light of the Canadian charter of rights and freedoms but it however became clear from the Supreme Court ruling that the law protected a plaintiff’s reputation at the expense of the freedom of speech.
Grant vs. Rorts Star corp. is also another Canadian case that follows an almost similar precedent although it was under the tort of defamation (Supreme Court of Canada 1). In detail, the case revolved around the controversial reporting by Toronto Star of a golf course expected to be undertaken on a piece of land under the name of Peter Grant (who filed the case in the first place) (Supreme Court of Canada 1).
The article’s outline included comments from the public which inclined towards the fact that Peter Grant was exercising his political muscle to see the golf course project become a success.
The Toronto star tried to reach Grant for comments but he declined and at this point, the newspaper went ahead to publish the article (Supreme Court of Canada 3). In the Canadian Supreme court ruling, it was established that the law of defamation should allow the press or any other entity to freely report matters of public interest, so long as the exercise was done in a responsible manner. This therefore means that the Canadian Supreme Court regarded responsible reporting as a defense against defamation.
The Derbyshire County Council v. Times Newspapers Ltd case in the UK is also an example of the decline of the New York Times vs. Sullivan case precedent on the freedom of expression due to common law contravention (John 2). In the case, the Times News Paper published an article exposing the scandalous nature of the Derbyshire County council’s handling of its superannuation funds.
The Derbyshire County Council was offended by the article and later sued for libel. The resultant argument was whether a local authority or any other institution of similar nature could maintain an action of libel against the press for actions which it should have otherwise upheld as part of its governance policy.
The Court of appeal ruled that Derbyshire was not in a position to maintain an action of libel against Times newspaper, but based on an imaginative application of the common law (John 2). This ruling therefore implied that the rule derived from the New York vs. Sullivan case which stated that a party should have to prove untruthfulness for a defamation case to stand in court (as opposed to the defendant proving the truthfulness of facts) was rejected.
Criticism on the Case
The New York Times and its Progeny have been under criticism on the basis that it has failed to protect the press from the “reckless disregard standard”, and at the same time, the New York Times has been both overprotective and under-protective of the rights of free expression (Watson 3). These accusations have also been mounted from the fact that the New York Times failed to protect the thought process of editors and other creators of information by launching a critical analysis on the intention of such personalities.
Also, the New York times has been under criticism from the fact that it has failed to preclude potentially extensive and chilling damages if a court of law affirms that a given media house had acted in reckless disregard of facts relating to a given defamation or libel case. In other quarters, it had been affirmed that the New York Times gave too much protection to the press, such that there was an imbalance in proceedings related to libel because the rights of the victims were almost entirely squashed (Watson 3).
In the same regard, the rightful compensation of libel victims was denied by New York Times because the victims found it increasingly difficult to obtain judicial declarations of falsity; which in the view of some people would have been the justifiable thing to do (Watson 3).
Nonetheless, there have been unique suggestions which have been proposed to curb the deficits brought about by the New York Times ruling. Specifically, it has been proposed that the plaintiff can seek a right to fair judgment by first letting go the right to compensation.
The arguments behind this opinion is that the victim could potentially reduce litigation costs and allow for the vindication of their process, while at the same time, saving the defendant (press) from being critically evaluated on their thought process or from having to experience the agony of defending themselves from probabilities of paying heavy damages (Watson 3). However, it still remains uncertain whether such an action would be in accordance to the spirit of the first amendment or not.
Conclusion
The New York Times vs. Sullivan ruling is probably the first case that made reference to the first amendment in defining the freedom of speech by the press. This was the ground through which it revoked the ruling by the Alabama court which granted Sullivan $500,000 because it was in violation of the laws stipulated in the 1st amendment.
From the outset of the case, it can be largely perceived that the court dealt with its own past precedents involving cases of a similar nature; much to the effect that libelous utterances cannot be termed as a fragment of expository ideas and that they do not fall as part of the constitutional protection of the freedom of speech.
The court therefore seems to reject prior declarations through the explanation that “the various other formulae for the repression of expression that have been challenged in this Court, libel can claim no talismanic immunity from constitutional limitations”; to the contrary, libel “must be measured by standards that satisfy the First Amendment” (Hopkins 568).
In this regard, it can be said that the New York Times revolutionized the interpretation of the law of libel and started the general shift in first amendment Jurisprudence because the traditional approach of whether libel was a protected or unprotected speech was thereafter abandoned after the ruling. Instead, a more speech-protective, friendly analysis was adopted, exemplifying the apparent danger of letting libel curtail the freedom of speech (which is protected by the 1st amendment in the first place).
In light of these developments, the New York Times case ruling thereafter set a precedent for other courts to adopt a more sensitive but less formulaic interpretation of torts of libel and defamation; in line with the freedom of expression rights which are protected at the heart of the 1st amendment. However, the biggest argument that remained after the ruling was whether the resultant decree only bound public officials or other individuals and organizations as well.
However, later cases solved this dilemma by extending this rule to individuals like athletes, celebrities and the likes because such personalities were well known by the public.
However, several years after the court ruling, the court was again deeply divided on the scope and limitation of the freedom of free speech as evidenced from the Gertz vs. Robert Welch Inc. case which brought forth the ruling that the freedom of speech did not extent to private individuals or cases that touched on matters of public interest since private individuals were usually unable to rebut the libel effectively (plus they often don’t go out to seek public opinion).
Also the court is of the opinion that private individuals are in a position to recover from libel, much faster than public officials can; just by proving negligence.
Comprehensively, it should be noted that the New York Times was solely driven by concerns of free expression in the South because at the height of the case, there were attempts to conceal civil rights oppression in the states. The New York Times case should therefore not only be viewed as a step to upholding the right of the press regarding the freedom of speech but also a step towards the upholding of civil rights and a step towards the elimination of racial sentiments.
Works Cited
Anthony, Lewis. Make No Law: The Sullivan Case and the First Amendment. New York: Random House, 1991. Print.
Burnett, Nicholas. New York Times v. Sullivan: Free Speech on Trial: Communication Perspectives on Landmark Supreme Court Decisions. Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama Press, 2003. Print.
Clurman, Richard. Beyond Malice: The Media’s Years Of Reckoning. New York: Transaction Publishers, 1988. Print.
Devol, Kenneth. Mass Media and the Supreme Court: The Legacy of the Warren Years. New York: Hastingshouse/Daytrips Publ., 1990. Print.
Dyzenhaus, David. The Unity of Public Law. Ontario: Hart Publishing, 2004. Print.
Forde, Kathy. Literary Journalism on Trial: Masson V. New Yorker and the First Amendment. Massachusetts: Univ of Massachusetts Press, 2008. Print.
Hensley, Thomas. The Boundaries of Freedom of Expression & Order in American Democracy. Kent State University Press, 2001. Print.
Hopkins, Wat. New York Times Co. V. Sullivan Forty Years Later: Retrospective, Perspective, Prospective: a Special Issue of Communication Law and Policy. New York: Routledge, 2004. Print.
John, Philip. Defamation – Case Law: Derbyshire County Council v Times Newspapers Ltd. 2010. Web.
Kellermann, Alfred. Israel among the Nations: International and Comparative Law Perspectives on Israel’s 50th Anniversary. Tel Aviv: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1998. Print.
Lamoureux, Edward. Intellectual Property Law And Interactive Media: Free For A Fee. New York: Peter Lang, 2009. Print.
Menez, Joseph. Summaries of Leading Cases on the Constitution. London: Rowman & Littlefield, 2004. Print.
Supreme Court of Canada. Grant v. Torstar Corp., 2009 SCC 61. 2010. Web.
Watson, John. “Times v. Sullivan: Landmark or Land Mine on the Road to Ethical Journalism?”Journal of Mass Media Ethics 17.1 (2002): 3–19. Print.
Zirkel, Perry. A Digest of Supreme Court Decisions Affecting Education. London: Phi Delta Kappa International, 2001. Print.
This paper evaluates the New York Times coverage of the advertising campaign undertaken by the Nike company in 2007 to generate sale for its Nike+ sensor, used to help runners log and organize their training runs. Nike was one of many companies at the time that switched its focus away from traditional advertising outlets such as magazine advertisements and celebrity endorsed television commercials and instead shifted its attention to the potential of the web to create interactive consumer relationships.
Nike is well known for large scale advertising campaigns of the 1980s and 1990s that made full use of traditional advertising vehicles such as television. Perhaps the most famous examples are the Michael Jordan commercials from the eighties and the Tiger Woods campaigns of the nineties.
In both campaigns, millions of dollars were spent not only on the celebrities themselves, but on the television networks that ran the commercials. In recent years Nike has changed its advertising focus to the Internet; web based advertising has generated record profits for the company, and has also create a closer, more stable and resilient brand loyalty amongst Nike consumers.
The company recognized the ever growing presence of the web as a staple advertising engine. Nike’s target market now spends most of its time on the web and on mobile devices, and the company has adjusted its advertising campaigns and advertising budgets to reflect this shift in consumer interest and attention.
This paper analyzes the article The New Advertising Outlet: Your Life, which appeared in the Media and Advertising section of the New York Times on October 14, 2007.
At that time the Nike company was at the vanguard of a new breed of advertising campaign that switched its focus away from traditional advertising outlets such as magazine advertisements and celebrity endorsed television commercials and instead shifted its attention to the web and local, in-person community based events to market their clothing, shoes and exercise equipment (Story 2007).
In 2007 Nike launched a campaign to create an interactive advertising and build relationships with consumers directly through its web site and other electronic based advertising and media channels (Story 2007). This campaign was so successful that Nike entirely transformed its advertising ethos and saved millions on its advertising budget (Story 2007).
Historically, Nike has spent millions on advertising. The advertising campaign covered in the article was incredibly successful from a cost savings perspective. In 2006 Nike spent just over 30 per cent of the $678 million it had earmarked for its United States advertising budget, which would have gone to traditional advertisements on television networks and traditional media outlets such as magazines, newspapers and billboards (Story 2007).
By way of comparison, in 1996 the company spent 55 per cent of its United States advertising budget (Story 2007). With a savings of over 20 per cent, the switch to online advertising was a win-win situation for Nike: not only did the campaign generate profit, it saved money (Story 2007).
Nike made full use of the Internet as part of its communications and advertising strategy (Story 2007). Nike’s Internet advertising strategy creates a relationship with consumers; the company’s approach is reciprocal, and creates an interactive relationship between consumers, products and the web (Story 2007). On of the examples described in the article is the Nike+, a tiny sensor that runners place in their running shoes that can help them track their training regimen (Story 2007).
At the end of every training session, runners dock their mobile devices into their computers and upload the particulars of their run onto the Nike+ site (Story 2007). In this way, Nike’s Internet advertising strategy provides the conduit for community, all the while boosting sales and creating a long term relationship with consumers via the web. Runners who use Nike+ can make “friends with other runners around the world who post running routes, meet up in the real world and encourage one another on the site” (Story 2007).
According to Story (2007), Nike’s “famous swoosh is there all along. For Nike, this is advertising” (Story 2007). The company connects directly with consumers online. “It’s a very different way to connect with consumers, says Trevor Edwards, Nike’s corporate vice president for global brand and category management” (Story 2007). “People are coming [to the site] on average three times a week. So we’re not having to go to them” (Story 2007).
The campaign’s effectiveness surprised even the senior management of Nike. In the summer of 2007 the company recorded over two million visitors to its family of Nike-owned web sites, and in terms of sales, the campaign encouraged tremendous growth.
According to Story (2007), the company’s global sales grew “to more than $16 billion from $10 billion. And executives say the new type of marketing is a part of that trend” (Story 2007). At the time of the article’s writing, the company planned to deploy the Nike+ idea in some of its other product categories, including “basketball, tennis and soccer” (Story 2007).
Sales support for the campaign was a combination of the virtual interaction with consumers who used the Nike+, and on the ground in person sales associates who manned Nike’s athletically-inspired sales events, such as the 2006 “three-on-three soccer matches for youths in 37 countries and its San Francisco marathon for women” (Story 2007).
The article also highlighted some of Nike’s other in person and in store services that fell under the auspices of the advertising campaign (Story 2007). An example was the company’s sponsorship of a “Nike Running Club” that it operated from its flagship New York store (Story 2007). The Nike Running Club helps New York City runners map out their running routes, gather training advice for their runs, and sit in on speaker series and running workshops (Story 2007).
The engine behind this shift in advertising focus remains the power of the web to attract and hold consumer attention, which represents “a fundamental change in Nike’s view of the role of advertising,” as well as a fundamental shift in consumer behavior (Story 2007) . The article highlights other campaigns that do use celebrity endorsements, however these ads “are shown only on the Internet” (Story 2007).
An example offered by the article is the campaign featuring British soccer star Wayne Rooney in a series of videos, all of which premiered online, as well as the 2005 “2-minute, 46-second clip of the Brazilian soccer player Ronaldinho” which also premiered online (Story 2007). This video generated more than “17 million views on YouTube and became so well known that some television networks like Sky Sports and the BBC showed it in their news coverage — free” (Story 2007).
According to the Nike executives interviewed for the article, the company’s “future advertising spending will take the form of services for consumers, like workout advice, online communities and local sports competitions,” with the goal of the advertising campaign to build brand loyalty first and foremost online (Story 2007).
According to Stefan Olander, Nike’s global director for brand connections, Nike wants “to find a way to enhance the experience and services, rather than looking for a way to interrupt people from getting to where they want to go” (Story 2007). The campaign sells Nike expertise as well as its products, and creates a service so “that the consumer goes, ‘Wow, you really made this easier for me” (Story 2007).
References
Story, L. (2007, October 14) The new advertising outlet: Your life. The New York Times. Retrieved from www.nytimes.com
Publications by the Editorial board of The New York Times announce the opinions of the board itself, the editor, and the publisher. One of the recent editorials published online on May 25 presets an opinion on the problem of the people’s beach at Rockaway. The issue is that there appeared announcements about the part of the beach closing for summer 2018 due to erosion. Nevertheless, the community and the local businesses do not support this idea. The editorial board of The New York Times provides arguments of inefficient policies and the lack of action from the city officials who could have prevented the problem or eliminate it.
Rockaway Beach is a favorite place of rest for many New Yorkers who come there tired of the city heat. However, due to constant erosion and the lack of any protective measures, much sand is washed with water, which makes it impossible to use the beach any longer. The editorial board uses epithets to attract attention to the beauty of the place and its importance to the citizens, such as “a beautiful expanse of white sand,” “one of the crown jewels of New York City,” “a breezy bit of heaven for the thousands of New Yorkers,” etc. (The Editorial Board, 2018, para. 2-3).
One of the implicit arguments provided by the editorial board is that the city officials are trying to put the responsibility for the situation on the Army Corps: “Mayor Bill de Blasio said that the city had waited until the last minute to make the announcement to see if the Army Corps of Engineers could do something to fix the erosion” (The Editorial Board, 2018, para. 6). Some evidence of arguments between the Army Corps that were supposed to build jetties to protect the beach and the city officials are provided. The editorial presents arguments of both parties, thus contributing to the objectivity of this dispute. Thus, the mayor claims that “the only way we’re going to solve the underlying problem is with the Army Corps,” while the Army Corps justify the delay by the fact that the project has not been approved (The Editorial Board, 2018, para. 7). The argumentation provided in this editorial is deductive.
One of the possible logical fallacies found in the arguments presented in the editorial is that of false cause. The city officials tend to accuse the Army Corps of failing to build jetties while, in fact, the officials themselves did not act effectively to solve the problem. Nevertheless, the editorial itself does not contain any significant logical fallacies. The arguments are supported by numeric data, which helps readers make their own conclusions. Moreover, this editorial does not contain much of the author’s thoughts and opinions. It uses data, citations from the interviews with officials, the ideas of other stakeholders such as small business representatives involved in this issue.
On the whole, the editorial is well-structured and supported by high-quality, reliable arguments. It does not only present the causes of the problem but also outlines the possible consequences. Thus, in case of actions are not taken to protect the beach, the whole Rockaway Peninsula can be in danger because the erosion that threatens the beach can harm the barriers created to protect the constructions on the peninsular. Although the editorial does not provide explicit conclusions about the effectiveness of the city officials, the lack of trust in the elected people in power is evident.
The evaluation of the quality of data provided regarding political and economic issues in mass media is important in order to understand whether the presented information is biased or can influence the public’s opinion. The article by José María León Cabrera and Clifford Krauss, titled “Deal Struck in Ecuador to Cancel Austerity Package and End Protests,” was published in The New York Times on October 13, 2019.
The article is on the cessation of mass protests in Ecuador associated with President Lenín Moreno’s decision to reject the implementation of an economic austerity package. The problem of protests and mass unrest in Quito, the capital of Ecuador, was also discussed in the articles by Joe Emersberger (for FAIR) and Michael Weissenstein and Gonzalo Solano (for NewsHour). The purpose of this paper is to evaluate the information presented in these three sources and conclude which articles present facts accurately with a focus on the quality of data in The New York Times.
Summary of the Article in The New York Times
On October 13, 2019, President Moreno reached the agreement with Indigenous leaders on stopping riots in Quito that had become the result of the President’s decision to follow Decree 883 by the International Monetary Fund. The associated details are discussed by Cabrera and Krauss (2019) in their article for The New York Times. The authors started by accentuating the celebration of the victory by activists of the 11-day protests, in which over 1,000 people were injured.
Protests associated with fires and street violence could cause further progress of political and economic instability in the country. Thus, President Moreno stated that he would change the decision to follow Decree 883 to receive a $4.2 billion loan for the state (Cabrera & Krauss, 2019). Thus, both parties, the administration, and Indigenous leaders would work together on stabilizing the situation in the country.
The problem was that, according to the International Monetary Fund’s conditions and program, it was necessary to remove Ecuador’s fuel subsidies that are important for Indigenous people in the country. According to Cabrera and Krauss (2019), the motivation of President Moreno was that the subsidies are costed about $1.3 billion per year. Still, the reaction of citizens was negative, and President Moreno’s decision became a trigger for organizing many violent demonstrations in Quito.
The abolition of subsidies was proposed as part of an austerity plan offered to Ecuador to guarantee a loan that was needed for improving the country’s economy (Cabrera & Krauss, 2019). The authors of the article note that the crisis in Ecuador led to significant increases in fuel prices that also made Indigenous protesters block the work of roads and oil stations.
The authors inform that the first attempts to solve the conflict were made on Saturday when President Moreno emphasized his decision to revise economic policies to respond to protests. However, Indigenous leaders pointed at the necessity of discussing the problem with the government under the supervision of the United Nations and the Catholic Church in Ecuador (Cabrera & Krauss, 2019). As a result of the discussion, President Moreno agreed to address protesters’ concerns. Cabrera and Krauss (2019) explain this change in the President’s position, referring to the role of Indigenous groups in the country’s political events as they greatly influence elections.
It is important to note that the authors also mentioned that many protesters were supporters of Rafael Correa, the former president of Ecuador. Furthermore, during riots, Indigenous groups were considered as serving the interests of Mr. Correa. The article was ended by describing the negative outcome of the protests for the Ecuadorean economy and the oil industry because of preventing many operations of oil companies. Since the oil industry is extremely important for Ecuador, President Moreno had to guarantee stable oil production by ceasing protests.
Evaluation of the Information Presented in The New York Times
To evaluate the information provided by Cabrera and Krauss (2019) in their article, it is necessary to assess it against opinions and critique presented by Emersberger (2019) and Weissenstein and Solano (2019) in their writing. In this section, the detailed evaluation of data presented by Cabrera and Krauss (2019) will be provided to conclude on their credibility and accuracy. It will be stated what source can be discussed as giving more reliable and valid information with reference to the assessment of such aspects as relevance, authority, and purpose in addition to credibility and accuracy.
The article published by FAIR can be regarded as a detailed critique of the papers by the Associated Press on the end of protests in Ecuador in terms of misrepresentation of the nature of this conflict. According to Emersberger (2019), Ecuador has no significant debt load that can be discussed as a reason for accepting strict conditions recommended by the International Monetary Fund to receive a loan. Supporting his position with some figures on the economic situation in Ecuador, the author notes that the measures taken by President Moreno regarding the elimination of fuel subsidies were unnecessary.
Throughout the whole article, the author was developing the idea that economics during the presidency of Mr. Correa was not as dramatic as it was represented by the supporters of President Moreno. Furthermore, the course of the current President could be discussed as even more radical in terms of ignoring the needs of Indigenous people and disadvantaged groups. Thus, the main argument developed by Emersberger (2019) in his article is that the plan initially promoted by President Moreno reflects the interests of only economic elites in Ecuador. As a result, only the risk of worsening the mass unrest in the country made the President change his decision.
It is important to compare information in The New York Times and on the FAIR website. In contrast to the article by Emersberger (2019), the facts presented in the paper by Cabrera and Krauss (2019) seem to be informative, but general. The reason is that the authors refer to official sources, present general data associated with the official political course of Ecuador, and avoid the critical and subjective analysis of facts. When focusing on the factor of evidence, the article by Emersberger (2019) includes more factual data retrieved by the author from the website of the International Monetary Fund and other credible sources.
In the article by Cabrera and Krauss (2019), actual figures were used to present the background of the problem instead of supporting the argument. Thus, quantitative data were utilized sporadically by Cabrera and Krauss (2019) to provide the context. On the contrary, Emersberger (2019) actively used figures and statistical data to support his opinion regarding the nature of the conflict. However, the problem is that the author of FAIR as a watchdog group did not present information objectively, imposing a certain opinion on the audience.
Thus, one more important difference in these two articles is the authors’ tone to present their position. In spite of the fact that Emersberger (2019) provides a lot of data to persuade the reader that the Associated Press tends to misrepresent the situation in Ecuador to support the interests of the elite, his article seems to be subjective. The tone of the article and the manner in presenting the facts about the activities of the governments of President Moreno and Mr. Correa allow for assuming that the author supports Mr. Correa’s course. As a result, the information given in the article cannot be perceived as based on evidence and unbiased.
On the contrary, Cabrera and Krauss (2019) chose the strategy of a rather objective description of the situation in Quito without making analytical conclusions. The only weakness is the presence of an unsupported assumption about the participation of Mr. Correa’s supporters in the conflict. The authors of the article in The New York Times tried to demonstrate their objectivity in the representation of facts, as they did not conceal the fact that President Moreno’s final decision was rather unexpected (Cabrera & Krauss, 2019). In addition, they were inclined to describe his economic course as having significant disadvantages.
If the author of the FAIR article promoted the idea the actions of President Moreno were worse than Mr. Correa’s activities, the authors of the paper in The New York Times described events without evaluation. For example, Cabrera and Krauss (2019) did not assess the activities of President Moreno and Mr. Correa using labels, they just listed facts in semi-formal language. Emersberger (2019) used rather expressive phrases in order to characterize his attitude to the course of President Moreno (“Moreno’s remarkable cynicism,” “wild allegations”), which does not contribute to regarding the paper as bias-free (paras. 10-11).
Although the author is a writer contributing to many online resources, his authority can be questioned because his purpose in this article is to provoke a certain emotional response from the reader. On the contrary, the purpose of an effective and credible article published in the media should be to inform the reader. From this perspective, the article from The New York Times is more reliable.
However, it is also important to discuss some weaknesses in the source from The New York Times. The descriptive character of the article by Cabrera and Krauss (2019) that adds to developing reliability in relation to the larger part of the article changed in the final part of the paper. The authors’ claims that “much of the protests are being engineered by former President Rafael Correa” seem not to be supported by facts, and the reader can doubt the objectivity of the presented information (para. 17). Thus, the two articles differ in addressing the issue and in their approaches to presenting facts, but they both, to some extent, lack dispassionate arguments.
The comparison of the article by Cabrera and Krauss (2019) with the writing by Weissenstein and Solano (2019) is also critically important for effective evaluation. It is necessary to identify possible differences and determine how the information in The New York Times is delivered to the reader in contrast to the other sources. The positions of the authors contributing to The New York Times and NewsHour are similar.
Thus, the strengths of the article by Cabrera and Krauss (2019) are in their description of the process of resolving the conflict by President Moreno with reference to details and facts related to the situation. The authors offered the relevant information and mentioned the reaction of the President to the conflict and the reaction of protesters to the reached agreement without imposing their opinion on the public.
The reason for eliminating fuel subsidies that were regarded as inappropriate by protesters was discussed along with the reaction of Mr. Moreno to violent conflicts in the capital. Thus, Cabrera and Krauss (2019) clarified the points connected with the economic crisis in the country and its debt. Furthermore, actual figures, as well as the reason for President Moreno to agree with the protestors’ conditions, were presented. Both groups of authors tried to professionally describe the political and economic situation in Ecuador without emphasizing their position that could potentially influence the reader’s attitude to the news.
Nevertheless, in spite of similarities in writing strategies by Cabrera and Krauss (2019) and Weissenstein and Solano (2019), there are still differences in their approach to informing the public about the crisis in Ecuador. These dissimilarities need to be discussed to assess the relevance of both articles.
Inaccurate or unreliable articles often provide biased information or mispresented information and facts to support authors’ views or the perspective of this or that political force. If the authors of the article in The New York Times avoided providing any analytical or critical comments on the situation, the authors of the Associated Press used an evaluative statement in their article. According to Weissenstein and Solano (2019), “the country is broke, and backing down to protesters would be a defeat for the president’s effort to undo the policies of his predecessor and former mentor, Rafael Correa” (para. 18).
This conclusion can mislead readers in their independent evaluation and analysis of the situation in Ecuador that is inappropriate for the high-quality source of mass media. In addition, comparing the articles from two sources, it is important to note that the paper on NewsHour can be considered as only partially relevant in spite of the quality of data presented in it. The reason is in the data of publication of the article.
The evaluation of the article published in The New York Times in comparison to the information provided on the FAIR and NewsHour websites allows for drawing conclusions regarding its quality and accuracy. On the one hand, watchdog journalism and watchdog groups are oriented toward guaranteeing the public has access to relevant, accurate, and unbiased data. On the other hand, the tone and style selected by Emersberger (2019) as the author of FAIR do not allow for speaking about informing the public without any bias.
Furthermore, the article by Weissenstein and Solano (2019) also includes some biased statements that can be misinterpreted by readers. The identified disagreements in informing the audience about the protests and their resolution in Quito accentuate the overall quality of the information given in The New York Times article.
High-quality informative sources need to address the criteria of currency, relevance, authority, accuracy, and purpose. The criterion of purpose was discussed in previous paragraphs, and according to it, the article in The New York Times is completely informative, without provoking an emotional response. On the contrary, the article by Emersberger (2019) fails to be solely informative as the author includes his subjective opinion and tends to support a certain political actor. The article by Weissenstein and Solano (2019) is more appropriate as its tone mainly corresponds with the purpose of informing the public.
According to the criterion of currency (claims in the article need to be recent), the paper by Weissenstein and Solano (2019) is most inappropriate as the discussed situation changed, and the description of the events before reaching the agreement by President Moreno is not relevant. The article by Emersberger (2019) is the newest one, but it is presented as the analysis of papers published on October 14, 2019. Accordingly, articles by Cabrera and Krauss (2019) and Emersberger (2019) meet this criterion. Additionally, all articles address the criterion of relevance as they are related to the discussed topic.
The focus on authority allows for analyzing the source of the article and credibility in relation to its author. The article by Cabrera and Krauss (2019) is published in The New York Times, which can be discussed as a reputable and credible source of information. José María León Cabrera is a journalist from Ecuador, who is a member of the International Fact-Checking Network. Clifford Krauss is a regular correspondent of the newspaper who specializes in energy business topics. Thus, the authors are viewed as specialists in their fields who rely on facts when writing articles.
The article by Emersberger (2019) is published on FAIR that can be regarded as a well-known watchdog media group with a long history that adds some credibility to the source. Joe Emersberger is a Canadian contributor to mass media sources, he has Ecuadorian roots. The source is important to provide an alternative view on the problem of President Moreno’s policy in Ecuador. The article by Weissenstein and Solano (2019) is published on the NewsHour website that presents reports of news for PBS. Michael Weissenstein and Gonzalo Solano are Associated Press journalists that allow for comparing the quality of the provided information with Cabrera and Krauss’s (2019) one.
The accuracy of the articles by Cabrera and Krauss (2019) and Weissenstein and Solano (2019) is easily checked when comparing the information in these papers with other credible sources of data regarding the events. The article by Emersberger (2019) includes many figures and links to other sources, but there are questions regarding the accuracy of interpreting the provided data.
From this perspective, the information presented in the articles by Cabrera and Krauss (2019) and Weissenstein and Solano (2019) seems to be correct and true as the authors’ purpose was to inform the public about the course of events. In this context, the article published in The New York Times seems to provide more relevant information in comparison to the article by Weissenstein and Solano (2019) as the listed facts are more recent. That is why the article from The New York Times can be regarded as a high-quality source of information.
Conclusion
Following the evaluation of the article by Cabrera and Krauss (2019) presented in The New York Times, it is possible to state that this article is tailored to a wide group of readers. This audience is interested in receiving reliable and unbiased information on the event to be fully informed, but not influenced by the authors’ opinion. In modern journalism, the opinion of authors of articles can be emphasized in papers to stimulate a specific reaction and emotion in readers.
As a result, this position cannot be viewed as bias-free. Referring to the topic of the articles – the discussion of the protests in Ecuador and the resolution of the mass unrest with the help of the President’s agreement with Indigenous leaders, – the general list of events without their judgment is preferable. The reason is that the reader should draw his or her own conclusions regarding the studied issue.
The article from The New York Times effectively addresses the needs of the reader, who is expected to learn the latest news regarding the situation in Ecuador. Although most general information is presented in the paper, there are also factual data to support the statements, and the author often refers to the words of the main actors in the discussed situation. When comparing the article by Cabrera and Krauss (2019) with the article by Weissenstein and Solano (2019), the former article is more relevant in terms of the data of its publication despite the fact that the information provided on the NewsHour website is also credible.
The level of trustworthiness is high in relation to both these sources as Cabrera and Krauss are regular contributors to The New York Times, and Weissenstein and Solano are journalists of the Associated Press. Still, after evaluating the article by Cabrera and Krauss (2019) in contrast to the article by Weissenstein and Solano (2019), it is possible to choose the former article because of the authors’ tone and approach to presenting facts that seem to be more valid.
Although sources similar to articles on the FAIR website are important to be studied by the public interested in the political situation, international affairs, and economics, the critique selected for this evaluation is not appropriate. The reason is that the author uses a range of data and sources in order to support a specific point of view that can differ from the truth. Websites and other media that are known as watchdog groups serve to provide the audience with unprejudiced factual information that is not influenced by stakeholders and carefully checked.
The article by Emersberger (2019) can be perceived as an alternative opinion on the conflict in Ecuador supported by facts and evidence. Still, this information is not directly related to the topic of informing about the end of the mass unrest in Quito. In addition, the author tends to use pathos more actively than ethos and logos when conveying his ideas.
The conducted evaluation indicates that the article in The New York Times should be selected for the primary review of the facts associated with the situation in Ecuador. The information presented in this article seems to be more accurate and objective than the data provided on the FAIR and NewsHour websites. The main weakness of the article by Cabrera and Krauss (2019) is that it lacks enough mentioned supporting material to provide the background for the made statements. However, according to such criteria as accuracy, relevance, currency, authority, and purpose, this article can be assessed as a high-quality one.
Arthur Sulzberger faces a major challenge in an attempt to revive his failing newspaper. The newspaper’s performance is decreasing. The company has lost many subscribers in New York. The country’s financial situation should be a major opportunity for Sulzberger.
The first approach is to promote the best working culture at the company. Every manager, editor, and employee at the company will be motivated in order to focus on the best goals and objectives (Finch, 2012).
This practice will motivate and empower every employee in order to achieve the best goals. This plan will motivate every employee and improve the company’s performance.
The article explains why the national newspaper has faced different obstacles from both the judiciary and the political divide. The CEO should ensure the company remains liberal and non-partisan in the country’s politics (Finch, 2012). The approach will ensure every article focuses on the needs of its readers.
Taking a political position will affect the effectiveness of the newspaper. This approach will make the company a leading player in the newspaper business industry (The Future of The New York Times, 2005).
According to Finch (2012, p. 58), “the idea to increase readership will always be an essential ingredient to performance and profitability”.
The newspaper has lost many subscribers in New York (The Future of The New York Times, 2005). The best solution is to utilize the best advertising strategies. These strategies will focus on the changing needs of every reader. The CEO can add new columns and articles in order to attract more readers.
This decision will make the newspaper a leading player in the sector. Sulzberger should also use simple English in order to attract most of the immigrants in the country.
The newspaper can also introduce new articles to address the changing needs of these immigrants (Finch, 2012). This above approach will make the newspaper more profitable.
The CEO should also consider the best business ethics. The company can use the best practices in journalism. This practice will address most of the company’s judicial challenges.
The company can use the best practices to improve its journalistic pride. This responsibility will make the newspaper a leading player in the sector.
The use of proper managerial practices, advertising strategies, and empowerment of every employee will make the newspaper competitive (The Future of The New York Times, 2005).
The New York Times is currently facing another major challenge. The proliferation of the digital media explains why the newspaper might fail. The newspaper’s journalistic pride can no longer make it competitive in the sector. This situation explains why Sulzberger should embrace the importance of digital media.
The company should also use its website to populate its online presence. The current explosion of the internet and social media is a major opportunity for the newspaper (Haak, Parks, & Castells, 2012). This strategy will ensure the company markets itself through the internet.
The decision to utilize the internet will make the newspaper a leading competitor in the industry. The editorials should also target every potential reader in the country. The CEO should also ensure the company delivers quality news to the readers.
The newspaper should consider the best moral practices and hire the right people. This practice will ensure the newspaper understands the changing needs and expectations of its readers (Haak et al., 2012).
The company should also capitalize on every opportunity. This approach will ensure the company circulates quality news in order to remain profitable.
Reference List
Finch, J. (2012). Managerial Marketing. New York: Bridgepoint Education.
Haak, B., Parks, M., & Castells, M. (2012). The Future of Journalism: Networked Journalism. International Journal of Communication, 6(1), 2923-2938.
Basic elements of historical research include existing literature around the context of the research. The New York Times remains a most subtle heard voice. It has been there for many decades. To get a better glimpse of the Newspaper about 100 years ago, we review an article published by the New York Times some 100 years ago. The objective is to draw out the functional aspect of consistency in covering important issues. Besides, having a viewpoint about readership trust in the Newspaper as their source of credible news is a vital aspect of this paper that is pursuant of historical research principles. In early 1900, the New York Times was a consistent and reputable News publisher.
This news publisher had a reputation for providing unique commentary about contemporary world issues. It also provided information and insight about important social-political issues. This made the Newspaper remain one of the great voices in America. It is important to review the nature of this profile and to have a comprehensive overview of how this newspaper has remained competitive. The objective of such complex research is to expedite historical research principles and provide insight about how comparison of past and present issues can guide in analyzing contemporary world events and social-political issues.
In this paper, we will first take a critical look at a New York Times story published on Wednesday, 26th of February 1908. Two interesting stories are significantly attractive and we will review them. One is about Morgan, then a popular entertainer. The headline reads ‘Morgan to Entertain Queen.’ J P Morgan was a very popular entertainer/singer. Morgan was to sail all the way to entertain the queen (“Morgan to entertain Queen”). Of course, to have the chance to entertain the queen is indicative of both good influences across the political arena as well as a great repute in the entertainment industry. Here, we notice New York Times was always publishing stories about big names. The readership is a traditional one that takes pride in reading stories about the elite and their influence on the socio-economics of the nation.
In this 1908 news story, Morgan boarded a ship named Adriatic headed for Europe. His mission was to visit and entertain Queen Alexandria. In the story, J. Pierpont Morgan and his daughter Satterlee boarded the Adriatic (“Morgan to entertain Queen”). Both Morgan and his daughter occupied the suite of six staterooms. This exquisite accommodation is on the upper promenade deck of the Adriatic. Morgan is sailing to London and it is said that he will meet the queen. Queen Alexandra sometimes ago expressed her desire to meet Morgan and see his London collection. Morgan will show her his London collection and while she views the treasures, Morgan and his daughter will entertain her (“Morgan to entertain Queen”). Conclusively, this story is dated 100 years ago and it is indicative of how Americans love entertainment news. It is also indicative of a very important role played by the New York Times to provide insight into contemporary world events.
Another interesting story is the headline story about embassies rooting for Roosevelt. On the New York Times, front page the headline read ‘Embassies Root for Roosevelt.’ The story told away about the immense support coming from different quarters for Roosevelt. This is a political story told with a lot of zest and enthusiasm. This trend in newspaper publishing is commonplace to date. It is a method of keeping readers aware and entertained. This political story brings to focus the commonplace political coverage in New York Times. To get a more vivid overview of the trend and historical trend in entertainment and news publishing at New York Times, I will take a critical look at current or rather, the latest edition of New York Times. This review will provide an important standpoint about how history is replicated and trends once revered and used as key corporate strategies are re-defined to keep consumers happy (“Embassies want Roosevelt.”).
From a management perspective, New York Times has been very keen on consumer retention. It has succeeded in achieving consumer retention through re-defining newspaper publishing and providing consistent quality. Consumer retention is a practice employed by many corporations to keep returning consumers happy and consistent. Today, New York Times remains very authoritative. A leading entertainment and social-political voice that keeps its promise of quality news and distinctive journalism, the New York Times has made news publishing and reading an essential daily habit across American households.
The issue we will review is a provisional issue published in 2001. The newspaper was published hours after the September 11 attacks that left thousands of Americans dead. The newspaper was published on September 11, 2001, it was a late edition. In the headlines, New York Times told emphatically about the theatre America had been turned into. The headlines screamed ‘US ATTACKED’. The subheading read, ‘HIJACKED JETS DESTROY TWIN TOWERS AND HIT PENTAGON IN A DAY OF TERROR.’ The newspaper told away emotionally about the peril Americans had been subjected to (“New York Times” 1). The Newspaper talked about the president’s reaction and his promise to avenge the deaths of Americans.
‘President vows to exact punishment for evil’ (Shememann, pp. 1-14).
With a picture of the heinous act in progress, the New York Times reveals the terror attack and describes President Bush’s reaction to the attacks in a very encouraging, inspiring, and consoling manner. To many readers who read the news, the role of the president was executed somberly. President Bush was calm, thoughtful, and scheming how to retaliate. The stories on the front page continue to explain in detail how the twin tower attacks unfolded. Pictures on the front page explain the length and profundity of distress and the ghoul of this criminal act (Shememann 1-14).
In comparison to the previous stories published 100 years ago, New York Times has a habit of making the chaotic and the most important issues, headlines. By replaying the scenarios New York Times has made it a habit to make socio-politics a theater in which it thrives. Historical research is the review of past information and how its value and meaning in context are replicated today. In practice, New York Times trend has not changed rather has been revamped consistently to meet a demand for narrative news stories that reflect topical issues of socio-economics.
The New York Times makes sure it covers someone important in its news publishing, especially headlines. In 1908, JP Morgan and Roosevelt were covered in the New York Times front-page headlines (“Embassies want Roosevelt”). The same is replicated 100 years later with President Bush in focus during a national crisis. The compromising of the US is discussed candidly with the terrorist being termed as evil and their deeds heinous and demonic.
Works Cited
“Morgan to entertain Queen.” NEW YORK TIMES. 2010.
“Embassies want Roosevelt.” NEW YORK TIMES. 2010.
Schmemann, Merge. “President Vows to Exact Punishment for Evil.” NEW YORK TIMES. 2010. late edition: 1-14.
Whether or not technological progress is a positive phenomenon is a controversial question. Much has been written and said about the effects of media and technologies on human performance. Steven Pinker’s article in the New York Times is a reasonable response to public concerns about technology, progress, and media evolution.
According to Pinker, technologies are the only things that keep people smart. There is an emerging consensus that technologies do not lead to higher returns in business but result in overspending; however, the current research does not support this belief.
Steven Pinker is correct in that technologies to help students and scientists to improve their skills. The Internet is not dangerous by itself and does not lead to the development of emotional and psychological disorders; instead, when used reasonably, electronic media hold a promise to improve the health and wellbeing of people.
Steven Pinker’s article in the New York Times is a reasonable response to public concerns about technologies, media, and progress. Thousands of people perceive the Internet as a source of multiple adverse effects on individual and business performance. Nicholas G. Carr is no exception: Carr is confident that technologies do not improve organizational and business competitiveness but result in overspending.
These claims do not reflect the realities of technological advancement. Pinker claims that technologies are a hallmark of the current scientific progress.
The Internet and other electronic media help to multiple discoveries like fruit flies and speed up the implementation of various scientific projects (Pinker). In some instances, excessive information can be addictive and damaging. This is particularly the case of people with attention deficit disorder (Pinker). However, digital media and technologies are not dangerous by nature. When used reasonably, they are the only things that keep people smart (Pinker).
Steven Pinker is correct: when used reasonably, digital media help individuals and organizations to improve their performance and skills. Writing, writing processes, and literacy presents an excellent example of human-technology integration since writing is the fundamental human skill.
According to MacArthur, the use of technologies improves traditional writing outcomes (259). Automatic spell check helps struggling students to meet their learning objectives and improve their writing results (MacArthur 260). In other instances, technologies facilitate better learning experiences through automated feedback (MacArthur 260).
Technologies do not affect all learning processes directly but change student expectations and experiences in the classroom (MacArthur 260). For example, an Internet search task activates brain regions that are usually involved in reading a text, and the more experienced are Internet users, the greater extent of brain activity they demonstrate (Small, Moody, Siddarth & Bookheimer 122).
Individuals with prior Internet search experiences demonstrate a greater extent of activation in brain regions responsible for decision making and complex reasoning (Small et al. 122). These media can support individuals in their striving to improve their writing and decision-making skills. As a result, they enhance the quality of their social relationships and outcomes.
Pinker suggests that “the constant arrival of information packets can be distracting or addictive, especially to people with attention deficit disorder.” However, even people with ADHD can benefit from the rapid advancement of technologies. Fenstermacher, Olympia, and Sheridan describe a variety of computer-mediated programs for children with Attention Deficits Hyperactivity Disorder (200).
The researchers claim that the benefits of integrating computer technologies with instructional models for children with ADHD are numerous. First, computer-based programs and video content can imitate actual social interactions and improve children’s social skills (Fenstermacher, Olympia & Sheridan 201).
Second, computer simulations can be easily suspended at any point, if children do not understand their meaning (Fenstermacher, Olympia & Sheridan 201). Technologies exemplify an essential factor of progress in all fields of human performance. Technologies are not dangerous by nature, and the adverse effects are entirely the products of unreasonable technology use.
Pinker is reasonable in his discussion of technologies. The author realizes that technologies can be particularly damaging when misused. Pinker believes that the solution is not to reject technologies but to develop instruments of self-control. Technologies help people to manage their intellectual output (Pinker). They improve basic human skills and contribute to the development of relevant solutions to various problems. As a result, society should not panic about new electronic media.
Conclusion
Pinker is confident that digital media are the only factors that keep us smart. Nothing is perfect, and only effective strategies of self-control can protect us from the harmful effects of new electronic media. I agree with Pinker in that media are an essential factor of personal and organizational progress.
I believe that humans are responsible for turning technologies and electronic media into a destructive force. Technologies are not dangerous by nature but require a reasonable, balanced approach. The main task is to develop strategies that help to reduce the negative influence of electronic media on human cognition. Future research must focus on the analysis and creation of self-control mechanisms and strategies to retrieve our intellectual potential to the fullest.
Works Cited
Carr, Nicholas G. “Why IT Doesn’t Matter Anymore.” Harvard Business School, 2003. Web.
Fenstermacher, Kevin, Daniel Olympia, and Susan M. Sheridan. “Effectiveness of a Computer-Facilitated, Interactive Social Skills Training Program for Boys with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder.” School Psychology Quarterly, 21.2 (2006): 197-224. Print.
MacArthur, Charles A. “The Effects of New Technologies on Writing and Writing Process.” In Charles A. MacArthur, Steve Graham and Jill Fitzgerald, Handbook of Writing Research, New York: Guilford Press, 2006, pp.248-60. Print.
Pinker, Steven. “Mind Over Mass Media.” The New York Times, 2010. Web.
Small, Gary W., Teena D. Moody, Prabha Siddarth, and Susan Y. Bookheimer. “Your Brain on Google: Patterns of Cerebral Activation during Internet Searching.” American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 17.2 (2009): 116-126. Print.
The editorial under consideration, entitled “Haiti” deals with the earthquake in Haiti and the actions taken and to be taken in order to help Haiti to overcome this tragedy. The editorial highlights the steps made by the United States Government and other American organizations to help Haitians to surmount the aftermath of the earthquake in a comprehensive and very emotional language, providing quite complete information on the topic. Due to its emotional character the editorial is very effective and achieves its main purpose to exhort the community to participate in this process, and to stress the gravity of situation in the region.
The author provides comprehensive information referring to competent sources, which makes his facts presentation convincing.
The editorial under consideration is organized very logically, providing the classic structure when “statement of circumstances” is “followed by evidence and then conclusion” (Ward 72). Thus, the author makes readers aware of the earthquake and its gravity, and after that he starts providing information on the assistance of the United States. This information is comprehensive since the author mentions definite and even very powerful people: President Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Bill Clinton, who, in author’s opinion, can make a lot to assist Haitians.
The editorial highlights some of the governmental programs implemented by the people mentioned above. And all this makes the reader understand that the author possesses exhaustive information so he is quite competent to express his opinion and, which is more interesting; the author’s opinion is valid and can be taken into consideration. Even more: this can make the readers feel that “decision they would derive themselves, if given the opportunity and time” to “carefully weigh all information available” will be the same with that of the author (Meltzer 89-90).
The author uses numerous linguistic means of persuasion in the editorial.
And the editorial is full of the author’s opinions and conclusions, especially if we take into account Ward’s statement that “written word” is “inseparable from opinion and persuasion” (Ward 25). For instance, the author points out Bill Clinton’s values and calls him “so gifted and trouble-prone”, which depicts the authors positive attitude towards this person. It is necessary to point out that “the main purpose of editorials” is to participate in “the moulding of public opinion on current affairs”, and, thus, the authors “need linguistic means to serve the factual evidence in as convincing a way as possible” (Westin 101).
As far as the actions implemented by the government are concerned, the author insists that “administration must make sure” that its steps will be successful. The author uses modal verb “must” to reveal own opinion on what is to be done, and this opinion is enhanced with the emphatic statements, such as “confusion and chaos” may come into place if they fail to undertake “rational and effective campaign”. The editorial represents the author’s point of view – “first to rescue, then to rebuild”. And such pieces of advice are not rare, which can be illustrated by the number of modal verbs. For instance, “should” is used three times, “must” is also used three times, and the verb “need” is used 6 times.
At this point I’d like to mention that modals serve “as overt markers of persuasion” (Westin 111). It is necessary to pay attention to the numerous use of the verb “need”. It is the word which expresses the author’s opinion on the situation in Haiti, with the help of this word repetition through the entire editorial the author tries to persuade the reader that the situation is really severe and “needs” assistance of the whole American society. And, actually, the author succeeds, because after the reading two thoughts stay in mind: catastrophe in Haiti, Haitians need our help.
The author uses very emotional words.
Of course, not only the significant amount of facts makes these thoughts emerge in the readers minds. The emotional impact of this editorial is the main reason for that. As mentioned above the editorial is highly emotional. The author uses such words and expressions as: “the world weeps”, “survivors’ agonizing accounts”, “relentless poverty”, “tragic”, “catastrophe, “disaster” and others. Such chose of words is not sudden, of course, with the help of words mentioned above the author created the atmosphere of catastrophe and made the reader feel the gravity of those events.
The author uses numerous linguistic structures which contribute to the editorial’s expressiveness.
Apart from emotional words the author uses, so to say, emotional sentence structures: the earthquake “did damage” or “had we all not seen”. The use of imperative mood also contributes into evoking the readers’ emotions, for the author makes the readers draw their attention and make deeper sight into the Haitians despair, and even more, the author already brings the results of this observation: “Look at Haiti and you will see…” By means of the methods mentioned above the author, first of all, expresses his opinion about the earthquake and make the readers share this opinion. The editorial reveals catastrophic situation in Haiti with no homes, no food, and no enough medical assistance.
The author appeals to outer linguistic knowledge of readers (news on TV, photos).
The author also appeals to the different sources of information concerning the catastrophe: “photos”, “videos”. So in this manner the author makes the readers’ recollect those articles, news, etc., which described the whole situations with horrible visions of the disaster. So the author connects the pictures the readers already might see, with the opinion of the editorial, which will become the readers own opinion. And the reader is persuaded to assist those people by presenting inspiring initiatives of the government and other organizations. The author also stipulates that “the United States has a special responsibility” to provide assistance to “its neighbor”. So the readers are already convinced in that and are ready to donate, or exhort others to help, or, at least, to make one’s own opinion which coincides with the author’s opinion.
The editorial is counted on the whole society.
Another very important thing to be considered is the audience which the author wants to affect by the editorial. And here the audience is very wide, the author appeals to different people and organizations: “private citizens” and “charitable organizations”. But, of course, the main target group is “private citizens”. Moreover, the author directly points out the ways how American people can help, mentioning “charitable organizations” and “humanitarian aid”. And this conclusion is not only based on the hints in the editorial. The whole language of the editorial is simple and understandable by everyone, without using some specific terminology.
And the main goal of the editorial is to reach people’s hearts and exhort them to assist Haitians. And the end of the editorial is very remarkable since here the author expresses his opinion about the necessity to help Haitians not only with surmounting of the earthquake aftermaths, but also to assist in the building of a strong state which will not face such grave problems in future. And this opinion is expressed by means of the imperative mood and quite emotional words: “generations of misrule”, “political strife”, “suffering forever”, “Haitians do not need condolences”, “the ability to help themselves”.
The main idea of necessity to provide assistance to Haitians is transparently revealed with the help of different linguistic and non-linguistic means.
And, finally, it is necessary to consider the purpose of the editorial which lies on the surface. The author expresses his opinion of necessity to assist Haiti. This is the main idea and the theme of the editorial under consideration. This statement can be proved, first of all, by the numerous uses of the corresponding words. Thus the word help is used 5 times, the word aid 3 times, the assistance was also used once, and it is necessary to add that the word commitment (which reveals the idea of assistance here) was used twice.
Another way to persuade the readers in the necessity of assistance used in the editorial is highly emotional depiction of the catastrophe aftermaths. The examples of the emotional words and structures used in the editorial are mentioned above. And, of course, the author uses the examples of governmental aid, which is to make the reader think, that American government does a lot for saving and assisting Haitians, different organizations also participate, and even private citizens can help, so why not to help as well.
The main purpose of editorials to persuade is achieved due to the emotional character and comprehensive information provided in the editorial under consideration.
Moreover, being editorial it reveals the authors opinion which also affects the readers. The author expresses his ideas strictly and very personally, which makes them sound more akin with the readers’ own ideas. So the purpose of the editorial is achieved, and the author reaches all his aims: to express his views on the necessity to help and to show the ways in which this help can be provided. Thus, it is possible to conclude that the editorial under consideration achieves its purpose due to the use of such means as: logic structure, comprehensive information, use of modals and imperative mood, emotional language. It is also necessary to add that the editorial under consideration can be considered as a successful one, since it reveals the authors opinion transparently and it also likely to make the readers share this opinion.
Works Cited
Meltzer, K. “Newspaper Editorial Boards And The Practice Of Endorsing Candidates For Political Office In The United States.” Journalism 8 (2007): 83-103.
“Haiti.” New York Times 2010: A36.
Ward, B.G. The Student Journalist And Writing Editorials. New York: Richards Rosen Press, 1969.
Westin, I. Language Change In English Newspaper Editorials. New York: Rodopi, 2002.
The major reason for this news is Biden’s will to increase taxes for the rich to fund his plan of reshaping the economy. Biden seeks to increase taxes for the rich in a move he terms as ‘ensuring the rich their fair share of taxes’ to pump about four trillion US dollars into the economy (Tankersley). In his plan to reshape the economy, he is seeking to alleviate poverty, cut down prekindergarten costs, and make vocational college free to everyone.
In the new tax policy, households earning more than four hundred and fifty thousand US dollars will get an increase in their taxation in different categories. The income tax will also raise to 39.6 percent from 37 percent set in 2017 (Tankersley). This push by Biden to rebalance the disproportionate economy is expected to meet fierce resistance from the Democrats. This is because it does not address the most important issue of the boosting of healthcare using taxes gained from the new policy (Luhby and Lobosco). However, Democrats are likely to shift and side with the policy by proposing new but with the condition of lowering percentages of tax increase in different categories in the new policy (Luhby and Lobosco). This is an extremely sensitive matter that the government and citizens are waiting for the decision of the Senate.
Get Woke
Increasing taxes for the rich has been one of the most engaging topics in the past two governments. It is critical issue because it will be a clash between Republicans and Democrats and will test the depth Democrats are willing to go minimize to effects of capitalism. The new policy that will pump money into the economy to fund the child tax credit, free vocational college, and national paid leave program will also affect everyone. Thus, this news is a major concern to everyone in the country as it will impact both the rich and poor. Fairness is hard to achieve in the country, but it is necessary, even though it will have negative effects. Finally, if the policy goes through, there would be a major dynamic effect in the way Americans will view both Republicans and Democrats, and that is why I choose this subject matter.
Be Woke
The tax policy has been a subject that the Trump administration always wanted to implement, but its time ended without being implemented thus making it a major concern for both the government and citizens. The tax policy will also contribute a lot to child poverty alleviation through child tax credit amongst other important advantages that will come with it. I choose this topic because it would give me a prospect of how the rich are viewed by the government. This policy will, however, cause a ripple effect and it might end up scaring off investors and may also take up to a year for it to be fully implemented questioning its time feasibility. It surprised me that for Biden’s plan to reshape the economy, taxing more the rich would be his source of funds to implement it. There always would be divergent views about this sensitive subject.
Stay Woke
Is the new policy to increase tax for the rich, seeking to punish the rich, and if so, is it constitutionally correct as the constitution treats everyone equally?
If the policy passes, how will it affect the Republicans’ and Democrats’ political demography?
Will the positive effects of the new policy outweigh the negative effects it is expected to cause?
Works Cited
Luhby, Tami and Lobosco, Katie. “‘Tax the Rich’ Plans at Risk as ‘Democrats’ Talks Drag on.” Edition CNN, 2021. Web.
Tankersley, Jim. “In Push to Tax the Rich, White House Spotlights Billionaires’’ Tax Rules. The New York Times, 2021. Web.