Tehran Times vs. New York Times
There are two sides to every story. The same can be said for the news, too. Iran and the United States have different outlooks on the same issues. Both also focus on different elements of the same story. The Tehran Times and the New York Times both wrote an article on the same issue. The articles written frame the story in opposite ways.
“Iranian leaders attempted on Wednesday to calm domestic anger over the downing of a passenger jet last week, while lashing out at European nations that have formally accused Iran of breaking the 2015 agreement”, the New York Times wrote. Rouhani is framed as an aggressive, desperate leader threatening the friendly European nations. Someone reading the article would surely think of Rouhani as a dangerous leader that needs to be annihilated.
“’If you take a wrong step, you will be harmed. Take the right step which is returning to the JCPOA,’ he said during a cabinet meeting”, the Tehran Times put first. The words of the Tehran Times are less fiery than the New York Times. No mentions to prior events are seen, nor are the focus of the words on the wrongdoings of Rouhani. What followed next were explanations of Iran’s actions.
Paragraph 36 of the JCPOA states that Iran may not comply with the deal if the other sides are not complying.
The article seemingly justifies Iran without trying to justify Iran. Unlike the NY times, there is no mention of the downed fighter jet and they do mention parts of the JCPOA. Is it objectivity, or is it subjectivity?
The differences between the two are easy to see. The Tehran Times looks less subjective the New York Times. The New York Times is almost asking you to look at Iranian President Rouhani in the same light as Saddam Hussein. Why does the New York times devote so much of the article to the downed plane?
The truth is that the New York Times leaves pertinent information out. People are only given enough to be mad at Iran, not to make critical decisions about which side to support.
Comments