In two very different articles, the same news is shared--that the oldest sea otter at any zoo or aquarium as died at the old age of twenty-two. Right from the start, the different titles have separate connotations. Fox's heading is, "Oldest southern sea otter in captivity, Charlie, dies in California aquarium at 22," whereas CNN's heading reads, "Charlie, the oldest sea otter at any zoo or aquarium, has died." Although both give accurate information, Fox's use of the word "captivity" has a much more negative tone compared to saying "zoo or aquarium." In addition, Fox's heading includes "in California" which gives it an additional accusatory tone. California is obviously known to be a more liberal state, while Fox is a conservative news outlet, so saying "in California" makes it seem as if it is California's fault that Charlie passed away.
Fox's article starts off with simply textbook facts; "The oldest sea otter in a zoo or aquarium died on Monday in California, according to the aquarium where he was kept." CNN's begins, "After the El Niño storms of 1997, animal experts decided that an orphaned sea otter pup they had found could not survive on his own in the wild." To me, CNN's is a much more personal approach that induces much more empathetic emotion than just restating that Charlie died on Monday. CNN also mentions that at the aquarium, "Charlie thrived", while Fox makes no mention of what a fulfilling life Charlie lived. This, in itself, demonstrates the differing focuses of the two news outlets. CNN is more positive and emotional, while Fox is more focused on just the facts. Unlike the Fox version, CNN also makes a reference to Charlie's appearance in the Guinness Book of World Records. CNN also notes that Charlie was incredibly intelligent, while Fox continues to maintain focus on the fact that he died.
Overall, CNN's version of the story was much more optimistic and positive. Fox stated the minimal facts with not much else. This blatantly shows the difference in perception and how that influences one's writing.
I think that you mentioning the way that Fox (a conservative news outlet) referenced California (as you said, a liberal state) was very important to note. Rather than focusing on the news at hand, a lot of the news that we see today is just a discreet way of sending another message that readers may not immediately notice, but will subconsciously internalize over time. This is a piece that could have been turned various ways, that captivity is bad, that California is bad, or that it is good to live a long life in captivity- proven by the way individual news outlets, like the ones above choose to portray a different story. The problem is, we rarely go out of our way to look for news from various different perspectives, and just believe the first thing that we see, causing us to not see the whole picture or only get the piece that the author wants us to believe in.
ReplyDelete