New York Times and Financial Times Differences of Informing Research Paper

New York Times and Financial Times Differences of Informing - Research Paper Example In the assessment, the divergence in the articles may be less accounted for by cultural differences, and more in line with differences in a vantage point with respect to the issue at bar. Assignment No. 3 Analyzing Reports on a Current Business Related Event: Germany’s Refusal to Share the EU Debt Burden Introduction The tenets of journalism require objective reporting, which is defined as: balance and even-handedness in presenting sides of an issue; accuracy and realism; separating facts from opinion; minimizing the influence of writer’s own attitude or opinion; and avoiding slant, rancor or devious purposes (Boyer, 1981, cited in Harcup, 2009: 83). Evidently, the purpose of news reporting is to filter out the reporter’s own sentiments which may unjustly color the report and mislead the readers. However, as Merrill’s paradox states, journalists desiring to give an honest and full account cannot detach themselves from their stories, and therefore subjectiv ity is essential to objective reporting (Russell, 2006: 40). ...While the apparent purpose of both articles is to inform on the facts of the event, they however inadvertently express the underlying sentiments of the writer and, apparently, the social perspectives which had given rise to them. In the choice of articles, opinion columns were avoided, since opinions of all kinds exist in all cultures. News stories were chosen because, despite attempts of the writer to remain objective, subjective elements subtly filter through which betray deep-seated social conditioning. The American (NYT) v the European (FT) writing styles. Evident in between the articles is a divergence of writing style. The New York Times article (denoted as NYT) adopted a more abrasive, combative writing style while that of the Financial Times (FT) was more subdued, less confrontational. Strong words were used throughout the article, such as in part. 1 (â€Å"stuck to her guns†), Mr. Monti’s â€Å"f ight with Germany† (par. 24) and par. 22 (â€Å"In his pointed comments†¦Ã¢â‚¬ ), the latter referring to Italy’s Mr. Monti’s comment about the president of the German central bank. NYT views the problem of common bonds as an external one, to it as well as to Germany, which appears to be justified in demanding a measure of control in exchange for sharing liability (â€Å"Control and liability must not be disproportionate to one another†, par. 2), which FT stresses that the problem is already systemic and threatens the whole of the Eurozone, Germany included, which should justify the debt-sharing (pars. 7-9).