Instead of two long articles, I found three shorter ones about the same folks. These are reported by Newsweek in coverage of the visit of the Chinese President to the American White House.
http://www.newsweek.com/blogs/the-gaggle/2011/01/20/an-all-american-white-house-state-dinner.html
by Daniel Stone
http://www.newsweek.com/blogs/the-gaggle/2011/01/19/the-top-secret-state-dinner.html
by Daniel Stone
http://www.newsweek.com/2011/01/19/china-s-failed-charm-offensive.html
by Isaac Stone Fish
The first two selections are blogs, and though the expectation may be for less objectivity in these, the subjectiveness is not as prominent as you might expect. Most opinion in each of these pieces is brought by quoting others either directly or indirectly. (For example: "...there were questions all week from reporters about why Hu would be feted as a friend of America when his government has been at odds with America’s core values, like freedoms for religion, speech, and the press.") The overall result is still a bit more flexed than news reporting would be. Which brings to mind the question, how do the diversity guidelines apply to different types of journalism? Is flexibility for different presentations permissable?
The next article, about an advertisement for Americans created by the Chinese government in correlation with President Hu Jintao's appearance, comes across with the same blog feel as the first two articles, even though it is not a blog entry. Not much in the way of crossing diversity guideline boundaries, except for the implication that Chinese and Americans are different and we cannot understand each other (culturally).
No comments:
Post a Comment