Free «Comparison of the News Coverage in the Mainstream News and Citizen Media» UK Essay Paper
The issue of acceptance of Syrian refugees has struck the Internet. Different journalists and writers try to provide their perspective on this controversial issue. Both mainstream news and citizen media journalist editions made attempts in presenting information about the event in the media. This paper aims at analyzing two articles, which reflect on the common issue about the necessity to accept refugees, in order to understand whether the mainstream news or citizen media managed to present the news better.
The first article under analysis is “G.O.P. Governors Vow to Close Doors to Syrian Refugees” written by Patrick Healy and Julie Bosman. This article discusses the furious rebellion of the Republican Party, which objected over Obama’s plan to resettle the refugees. The work is a part of mainstream news as it was published in such a respected newspaper as the New York Times. Besides, it includes not only discussion of the issue but also the grounds leading to it. The article is an objective piece of news, which provides proofs to its statements.
The second article under the title “Should the U.S. Want Syrian Refugees?” was written by John Heideraker in Power Line. The gist of the work is the same. The author makes an attempt to question whether there is a necessity to settle all the miserable people by indicating that the biggest part of them could be not refugees and even not the citizens of Syria. The author applies the chart in order to confirm his conviction that the US is not flexible enough in order to accept all the miserable people all over the world. In general, his ideas definitely have sense.
It is quite difficult to compare these works, because they have completely different styles of presenting the news. Mainstream journalism demands certain subordination, and it is manifested in the way of data representation. In case of citizen journalism, the situation is completely different as it consists mainly of the subjective vision of the issue expressed by the author.
It should be assumed that the article published in the New York Times is definitely better in terms of news coverage. It includes the all-rounded discussion of the refugee issue. The authors manage to show that, despite the fact that it seems to be totally positive mission, it poses severe danger to the American people as one out of 10,000 refugees could be a perfectly trained ISIS fighter. Moreover, the authors tried to cover not only the position of the Republicans but also the response of the Democrats. This made the article well-lighted, and it assisted the readers to make their own conclusion. This is the thing, which was not present in the Power Line article. It forced readers to accept the position of the author and did not provide a chance to make a choice, which is one of the most essential issues in journalism. People should have the opportunity to accept or reject a certain viewpoint. Otherwise, journalism turns into propaganda, which forcefully makes readers admit certain facts.
Limited Time offer!
Get 19% OFF
In conclusion, it should be stated that mainstream news do the job better and more professionally. They enlightened the news with necessary details and provided different viewpoints towards the issue. The author’s viewpoint is present in the article in the New York Times, but it does not impose a particular opinion. It gives a chance to consider certain things. In case of the citizen journalism, the situation is different not due to the journalists discussing the issue in a worse way, but because the article lacks details and explanation. It is crucial to show readers different shades of meaning and give them a chance to take a certain position. Thus, mainstream news cover the news better.
Do you need professionally written papers?
Place your order on our website to get help from qualified experts!Order now