One of the smaller perks of living abroad is getting information from different perspectives. Newsstands here carry a mix of French and Arabic magazines and periodicals, most of which aren't available throughout the country, let alone Europe or the US; satellite news primarily focuses on the region, including Europe and leading international news that occasionally touches events in the US and Far East Asia. Even internet searches first list Moroccan or French versions of American juggernauts like Google, Facebook and Amazon.
Though minor frustrations emerge while scrolling past ten French results to find a wanted English headline, every now and then I'll look at one of them to see a foreign point of view. Not surprisingly, if often differs from its American counterpart, if one exists. The most striking example I recently noticed was in the reporting of the Marrakesh bombing in late April. The difference was subtle but telling. For various reasons, each western news source I scoured refrained from describing it as a terrorist act, but all of the Arabic sources I viewed used the word "ارهاب" (terrorism) or some variation of it to describe the situation.
Perspectives differ; fittingly, it's important to look at each of them and that's what I intend to do today. This past Friday, the King of Morocco announced the results of a constitutional reform effort he initiated three months ago on the heels of the country's first demonstrations of its version of the "Arab Spring." I looked at this event through the eyes of four news reports the following day; as expected, each provided a different perspective despite similar facts. (for more background information on this issue, click here)
My small sample included articles published on BBC, The New York Times, The Washington Post and Al Jazeera (Arabic) news sites. Each posted an independent analysis within 24 hours of the King's speech, but all of them covered the event differently regarding three aspects: relevance (or importance), focal point and outlook. But first, they agreed on quite a bit as well.
Each article relied on - and reported - the same facts while quoting the King throughout. On Friday night, King Mohammed VI spoke to the Moroccan people on television, outlining his plan for constitutional reform. Reforms included (1) giving the prime minister and parliament more executive authority, (2) recognizing the Berber language, (3) changing the selection process for the Prime Minister and members of the Judicial branch, among others. Other roles, such as the King's status as the military and spiritual leader will largely remain unchanged. On 1 July, this plan will be put up for referendum. Here, the articles' similarities are harder to find.
Their first difference focuses less on analysis of the facts and more on the importance of the issue itself. Regarding the proximity of the reporting agency to the source, it appears that the issue's relevance - and subsequently exposure - drops significantly.
Starting with the source most closely culturally affiliated (but not geographically located) with the issue, Qatar-based Al Jazeera, the King's constitutional reforms was "front page" in the "Top News Stories" frame. At the time, it was the fourth story (of ten - a number that changes). Most readers - interested or not - would see this headline after a minute or so on the site. The story also included the most related articles of the four sources.
On the England-based BBC site, the story was also "front page" and center (not requiring any scrolling); however, it was pictureless and in medium font, surrounded by a half-dozen other headlines with photos and larger script. In the article itself, three related stories were listed, each regarding the reform effort itself. Again, a good majority of this site's viewers couldn't miss this headline, though most may not have read the story unless interested.
In America, readers of The Times and The Post wouldn't have found the articles unless they knew about the issue from another source. Both articles were buried in the "Africa" portion of the "World" section, a pictureless headline only. Within its article, The Times included a link to a general overview of Morocco whereas the Post article (taken from The Associated Press) didn't include any links. Very few viewers were likely to find these articles unless they were specifically interested in African affairs.
In the stories, the second - and most glaring difference - is noticed: the story's focal point. Headlines revealed three major themes that appear to be the result of cultural and geographical distance.
In Al Jazeera, the focal point is as bland as the headline, "The King of Morocco Announces Plan for a New Constitution." Through the stories first 80%, the journalist focuses on the details of the reform itself, offering little opinion on the matter. In the remaining portion, he focuses on the reason for the reform in the first place - demonstrators - and their apparent dissatisifaction with the process in which the announced reforms were created. If there was an undercurrent of opinion in this article, it was lost on me and Google Translate.
As indicated by its headline, "Morocco: Protestors say king's reform not enough," BBC Online focused on the negative reaction that the speech was likely to evoke, spending minimal space on the reforms itself and none on the process from which they evolved before concluding the piece with a couple paragraphs dedicated to the positive reaction. Though not overly biased to one side, the main theme was obvious and left me wondering more about the critics' next moves and whether or not the King's plan was earnest.
The American articles were similar to each other, both focusing on the potential governmental shift that the reform may cause, but differed in how they did it. The Times described the shift in terms of Democracy whereas the AP article on The Post looked at it in terms of the actual government system and how it may shift toward a Parliamentary Monarchy. Supplementing this point, both articles devoted space to the speech itself, some background information and probable reactions, both positive and negative.
So, what's next? Since we know the answer to this question (the 1 July referendum), the final difference regards outlook and whether or not the reporting agency presents an optimistic or pessimistic view of the upcoming referendum and beyond. Differences this time appeared to follow the drifts of freedom of speech as much as geography.
Al Jazeera offered no discernable opinion, which may or may not have been a result of recent opposition to its reporting during the "Arab Spring." Aside from leaving this article with an air of uncertainty because of my fledgling skills in the Arabic language, I felt like this piece provided the reader with the most room for indivual thought. Lacking any opinion itself and providing only facts for the reader left me wondering how exactly the people will truly react to the reforms and whether or not I should be optimistic.
Enjoying a little more journalistic freedom, the BBC report left me feeling the most pessimistic about the reform effort and the legitimacy of the King's efforts. As the headline indicates, critics have been vocal against the reform process and see the new referendum date (the old one was slated for September) as a means to placate demonstrators but continue the status quo. Additionally, one of the "related stories" doesn't quite elicit optimism, as it was entitled, "Is Morocco next for mass uprising?"
The American sources appeared more optimistic but still left room for uncertainty as I believe their limited knowledge - or better yet - understanding of the situation may have influenced their outlooks. Both sources concluded their pieces with Moroccans voicing how they view the future. Though both were guarded in their optimism, each believed that reforms will benefit Morocco's future. The Times described them as a positive shift toward a viable democratic system and a "new era" for the country, while The Post cited an interviewee who regarded the plan to reform the judiciary as much needed.
Taken by themselves, a full picture of the issue eludes us. As it appears, too many factors tend to skew the lenses of international news, whether they are geographical, cultural or political in nature. Regarding the King's constitutional reform, each of our sources offers a unique perspective after touching upon the facts of the issue.
But with each media outlet offering a unique emphasis, focus and outlook, we find different angles of the story and how different international audiences may view the issue. In the realm of international relations, each perspective should be respected and taken into account as we search for the right pieces to complete our picture's puzzle.
Please find the referenced articles here: BBC, New York Times, Washington Post and Al Jazeera.
No comments:
Post a Comment