International news? But work for the "individual"

United State is the centre of the world. She always make a voice in the international affairs. Recently, when dealing with the increasingly bitter dispute between China and Japan over a small group of islands in the Pacific, the US cannot act as the angel of peace and a unifying bond any more. Viewing from the American news stories, it is obvious that media opinions of the stakeholder like the US, always show the apparent inclination in international issues.

The US media keep their own attitudes towards the foreign political actions both indirectly and directly. Although they use the image of the protesters holding a banner reading "Protect Diaoyu Islands", they borrowed the term from Japan and explained that it is an "extreme nationalism" in a diplomatic standoff with China. This is the evidence that the US actually stands by the side of Japan. Meanwhile, they also pointed out directly by saying that Washington "would back Japan in the territorial dispute" clearly.

Firstly, economic element plays a dominant role. Like Kurt Campbell, the US assistant secretary of state for East Asian and Pacific affairs said that "the United States, Japan and China are deeply engaged in the global economy and that we all have a stake in the smooth functioning of the international economic situation". Therefore, the US media would like to participate in controlling the international relationship between these two countries strongly because of their own profit and self-interests.

Likewise, political element impacts greatly as well. As the "longstanding ally of Japan", the US should maintain the good reputation of Japan. Moreover, the disputed islands are covered under a security treaty that "requires the United States to defend Japan in event of an attack". Thus, the US has no choice to bias to another side.

So, can the media who engaged in the deputes work for the international public? To some extent, he can only work for the individual - his country and his business canpanies.


Relative links:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/23/AR2010092306843.html
http://articles.cnn.com/2010-09-24/politics/us.china.japan_1_diaoyu-senkaku-east-china-sea?_s=PM:POLITICS
http://mdn.mainichi.jp/mdnnews/international/news/20100928p2g00m0in010000c.html
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5ixbc11MsSSYjt96qSqcvxoYoz79Q?docId=CNG.cd0ab416a2c7901c0abb23f392c5057d.c71

Proximity decides, comparisons and interests

After 7.4-the magnitude earthquake happened in New Zealand, both Australian and Chinese give high level of media exposure these days. Chinese media seems report the news by normal proceedings, focusing more about the death (actually no death this time), severe injuries, survivors, damaged buildings and rescuing and rebuilding issues. Also they care about the attitudes from the local government, civil social organisations and the public. In particular, Chinese media pay more attentions to the non-death miracle this time, as China also experienced several big earthquakes these years. Most of the articles are discussing about the comparisons with the handling approaches between New Zealand related departments and Chinese ones.

However, from the opinions of the Australian media, they treats this issue for some other purposes. The media care more about the issues such as whether it would impact greater on Australian stakeholders, and how it will influence the natural factors in Australia. Like the Sydney Morning Herald said, it focus on whether "NZ quake set" will "shake Australia insurers". The Australian's headline appears more closed relationship by saying that "It wasn't meant to happen here". On the one hand, it is the geographic position determines that Australian citizen would be more likely to know the details about the impacts on them, rather them simply listing the disaster information. On the other hands, as these two countries have the similar cultural and economic environment, the Australian can borrow some ideas of the disaster relevant handling issues from the New Zealanders.

The media's spotlights change because of the different interests, not only from the state but also from the individuals and business companies. A series of issues may happen after the initial earthquake in New Zealand, which raises the Australian seismologist's attention as well. Similarly, like the news from Sydney Morning Herald, the journalist compares the last "Newcastle earthquake in 1989" which still ranks as the most expensive insurance event with the New Zealand one. Each media will find their own emphasis by compare with the similar cases from different aspects.

Related links:

http://www.smh.com.au/business/nz-quake-set-to-shake-australia-insurers-20100905-14vzj.html
http://www.china.org.cn/world/2010-09/05/content_20864785.htm
http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/90001/90777/90851/7129970.html
http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/90001/90777/90851/7128991.html
http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/90001/90777/90851/7129000.html
http://www.china.org.cn/world/2010-09/04/content_20862032.htm
http://www.smh.com.au/world/emergency-extended-amid-aftershocks-20100906-14xz3.html?autostart=1
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/it-wasnt-meant-to-happen-here/story-e6frg6nf-1225915033861
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/quake-city-facing-decade-long-rebuild/story-e6frg6so-1225915021009

Data and quotes using by choosing different angles

From this Wednesday (1st September), Chinese government started to requires cellphone users to register their identities when they purchase the new cellphone numbers. As the Wall Street Journalist said, it is "a long-discussed measure" in China, it catches worldwide attention. All kinds of experts and journalists analyse the reasons and trends of this implement.

These two stories both use the graphic approach to show the current status in the cellphone market in China. They clearly reflect the trends as well as the impacts in the mobile social life.

In the meantime, they both appraise the future of this implement is blurred. They both considered it is a much more difficult thing to control, using the quotes from the interviewees.

Also, like this kind of technological subject, the data and number is the most effective words to clarify and emphasis the matters, making the stories simple and direct, especially with the combination of graphic columns.

Then, the story written by the journalist of Wall Street Journal said the reason why Chinese government want to regulate the market is that " the anonymity" of cellphone "has enabled people to share politically sensitive information—from text-message jokes poking fun at top leaders to photographs of public demonstrations". It concerned about the privacy issue against the rights and interests of cellphone customers.

However, the Chinese journalist use many examples from other countries, such as India, Japan, Australia, and Singapore, to prove it is a commonplace implement in the mobile market in the world. It is not relevant to the political issue, and not in the use of restricting the freedom of speech, but focus on preventing "spam, pornographic messages and rampant fraud through the network".

Therefore, the angles the journalists choose tend to determine the soundbites they select. Thinking about the Google issue talked several months ago, it is easy to find the inclination of the Wall Street Journal is to express the opinion that Chinese government try to enforce this implement to regulate the free speech market of the public, in order to censor their words.

Actually, Chinese media tell the public it is an equal implement enforced on everyone, including foreigners. And they treat this implement more objective this time by admitting "it will definitely hurt business".

relevant links:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704791004575465190777886192.html
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/china/2010-09/01/c_13472445.htm