More, More, More

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/27/world/middleeast/in-egypt-trial-begins-for-workers-of-nonprofit-groups.html

     A trial in Egypt is the center of controversy. Nothing really happened in the proceedings that were reported upon. The trial was postponed until April after a short time, and none of the American accused were present. The article, itself, states that the defendants broke the letter of Egyptian law—it’s an open and shut case.

     However, the political implications, the involved powers’ pissing contest, and the journalistic coverage is of particular interest.

Let us look at the lead and the first paragraph:

“CAIRO — The politically charged criminal trial of 16 Americans and 27 others accused of running unauthorized and foreign-backed nonprofit groups here opened chaotically on Sunday and then was abruptly put off for nearly two months, all without any hint of resolution of the crisis that has threatened to upend the 30-year American alliance with Egypt.

Fourteen defendants appeared Sunday afternoon in the metal cage that serves as docket. But none of the accused Americans were present; only seven of the Americans remain in the country, including one who is the son of the transportation secretary in the Obama administration. Egyptian authorities have barred the seven from leaving, and they have taken refuge in the American Embassy for fear of arrest.”

Strong wording for an objective article, huh? As we have discussed in class, framing has a direct relationship with the facts that are presented, as well as the facts that are left out. The article shows obvious negative framing. Some framing is evident in blatant diction: the words highlighted above represent this. “Chaotically,” “crisis,” “threatened,” and others all paint the article with a hint of shadow. Other strictly subjective material include the journalist’s choice of facts: “metal cage that serves as a docket,” represents this.  The lead (the opening paragraph a journalist uses to “lead” the reader into the story, providing summary information) is also twice as long as the usual 25 words or less due to excess information. In fact, all the lead has to answer is the: Who? What? When? Where? Why?

Were we to rewrite it to fit journalistic standards, it would read something like this:

“Fourteen defendants appeared in court on Sunday in Cairo, Egypt, charged with running unauthorized and foreign-backed nonprofit organizations.”

 Who What(ed) in Where, charged with Why.

But that isn’t nearly as interesting. In fact, I doubt I would have read the whole article had it not been for the valiant display of international relations repercussions and political posturing.

Is that the solution? Comments-based journalism that thrives in Democratic Corporatist and Polarized Pluralist models enjoy a much higher readership than Liberal model publications. This cannot be the only factor, but one thing is sure—more people are more likely to read more interesting articles.