Can you read this and tell me if this makes sense and any other feedback you want to give? It is my assignment for tomorrow.
The major and first difference that was visible was the difference in
lines used in both articles. The Al Jazeera article used a headline, which was
basically stating a fact. “UN sees drop in Afghan opium growth”. The BBC headline
was more optimistic and inviting. Inviting in the sense that it was more appealing to
the audience to come and read the story. The BBC headline was ‘Sharp drop in
Afghan opium crop. This suggests the way the two media outlets chose to represent
and write the story. It already gives a mindset to the reader that the BBC story could potentially be more interesting to read due to the exciting headline.
The lead in both of the stories was significantly different. The writing style
and the word usage are different. The Al Jazeera lead is “Opium farming in
Afghanistan has declined by 22 per cent this year as prices for the drug tumbled,
causing, farmers to switch to other crops, the UN has said.” The BBC lead is “Poppy
cultivation and production in Afghanistan has decreased sharply, according to a
United Nations report.” The difference in the two is that again, the BBC lead is
leading people on to the main story, as it has not yet told people the actual fact.
Which is by how many percent has there been a drop. The Al Jazeera lead is direct
and in the lead only it has told people by how many percent there has been a drop.
Al Jazeera seems more factual and BBC lead is more optimistic because they again
use the word ‘sharp decline’ in the lead.
The way the both stories are worded is different. Al Jazeera mentions the
word ‘west’ a substantial number of times while BBC uses the actual names of the
countries. They report it as “European and US officials’”. On the other hand, the Al
Jazeera article there is a repetition of the word ‘west’.
There is a difference between the ways the two articles are written due to the
nature of the media outlet the two articles are written for. Al Jazeera is pro Arab and
they using words like ‘west’ etc reflects that. Al Jazeera story is more based on the
Business and Economic reasons of the Opium growth decline. The focus is the
decline in GDP. “Opium now makes up just four per cent of Afghan GDP, compared to
7 per cent in 2008 and a record 27 per cent in 2002, a year after the Taliban were
ousted.” BBC is a more neutral media outlet however they are still biased in the way
they have written the story. BBC’s focus is more on “death toll of foreign troops” and
the amount of British soldiers that have been killed in Afghanistan. The BBC story
focuses on “progress is possible” and geopolitics rather than the economic situation
in Afghanistan.
There is a language difference between both articles. Al Jazeera article is
written in a plain style with simple words and the BBC article is written in formal English. Simple example is that these two mean the same thing “The UN says the drug trade, which helps fund the insurgency, threatens the legitimacy of the Afghan state” and “The West has long said that money from the drugs trade funds the
Taliban and fuels corruption and crime in Afghanistan, weakening the state it is
attempting to support.” BBC used fewer words to convey the same meaning as Al
Jazeera.
There were no outside quotes used in the Al Jazeera article, only references from the UN report. BBC was thorough with the reporting and had quotes.
Can you read this and tell me if this makes sense and any other feedback you want to give? It is my assignment for tomorrow.
The (major and first difference) primary difference which is evident (was visible )was the difference in headlines used in both articles. The Al Jazeera article used a headline, which was
ly(?) stating a fact. “UN sees drop in Afghan opium growth”. The BBC headline
was more optimistic and inviting. Inviting in the sense that it was more appealing to
the audience to come and read the story. The BBC headline was ‘Sharp drop in
Afghan opium crop*"* This (suggests)highlights the differing manner in which (the way) the two media outlets chose to represent
and write the story. It already gives a mindset to the reader that the BBC story could
potentially be more interesting to read due to the exciting headline.
The lead in both of the stories was significantly different. The writing style
and the word usage are different. The Al Jazeera lead is “Opium farming in
Afghanistan has declined by 22 per cent this year as prices for the drug tumbled,
causing, farmers to switch to other crops, the UN has said.” The BBC lead is “Poppy
cultivation and production in Afghanistan has decreased sharply, according to a
United Nations report.” The difference in the two is that again, the BBC lead is
leading people on to the main story, as it has not yet told people the actual fact.
Which is by how many percent has there been a drop. The Al Jazeera lead is direct
and in the lead only it has told people by how many percent there has been a drop.
Al Jazeera seems more factual and BBC lead is more optimistic because they again
use the word ‘sharp decline’ in the lead.
The way (the)in which both stories are worded is (different*)distinct.* Al Jazeera mentions the
word ‘west’ a substantial number of times while BBC uses the actual names of the
countries. They report it as “European and US officials’”. On the other hand, the Al
Jazeera article (there is a repetition of the word ‘west’)emphasises the 'West'.
Why is this important? What does this illustrate?
There is a difference between the ways the two articles are written due to the
nature of the media outlet the two articles are written for. Al Jazeera is pro Arab and
they using words like ‘west’ etc reflects that. Al Jazeera story is more based on the
Business and Economic reasons of the Opium growth decline. The focus is the
decline in GDP. “Opium now makes up just four per cent of Afghan GDP, compared to
7 per cent in 2008 and a record 27 per cent in 2002, a year after the Taliban were
ousted.” BBC is a more neutral media outlet however they are still biased in the way
they have written the story. BBC’s focus is more on “death toll of foreign troops” and
the amount of British soldiers that have been killed in Afghanistan. The BBC story
focuses on “progress is possible” and geopolitics rather than the economic situation
in Afghanistan.
There is a language difference between both articles. Al Jazeera article is
written in a plain style with simple words and the BBC article is written in formal
English. Simple example is that these two mean the same thing “The UN says the
drug trade, which helps fund the insurgency, threatens the legitimacy of the Afghan
state” and “The West has long said that money from the drugs trade funds the
Taliban and fuels corruption and crime in Afghanistan, weakening the state it is
attempting to support.” BBC used fewer words to convey the same meaning as Al
Jazeera.
There were no outside quotes used in the Al Jazeera article, only references from the UN report. BBC was thorough with the reporting and had quotes.
You need to explain your quotes more. Maybe consider the different semantics and structure of the articles. In some places it is disjointed. Otherwise not bad.
DDR can you tell me what exactly you mean about disjointed when relating to my essay. I need to make corrections. I mean where do you think it is disjointed, the highlighted parts? Really? Not bad:hmmm:
Disjointed in the sense you have used a lot of quotes to illustrate certain points but you have failed to explain them thoroughly. Also, with regards to the structure, you need to make sure there is a definitive structure- differences, similarities, semantics, purpose, nature and the different audiences.
The highlighted words are additions which I added which I thought you could add.
Furthermore, there appears to be a lack of conclusion.
Aisha if I were you, I wouldn't call BBC "neutral". As you have mentioned, Al jazeera being pro Arab, I think you should emphasize the same way that BBC is more leaned to reflect the viewpoint of its govt and allies.
In this particular case BBC is optimistic, because it needs to show the audience that since British or allies are in Afghanistan, the drug growing has decreased sharply.
There are countless news, really countless, where very optimistic news coming from countries which are not on good radars of BBC are presented in dismal pessimistic way.
Headings, choice of words, accompanying pictures, background scenes--> the message that BBC conveys to its viewers is never merely a fact but an opinion!
Really I show highlight BBC as being pro government and allies? Well thank you for the great post there Marasi. Thanks for saying it is well written, I will make the addendum and then submit the essay.
Can you read this and tell me if this makes sense and any other feedback you want to give? It is my assignment for tomorrow.
There is a language difference between both articles. Al Jazeera article is
written in a plain style with simple words and the BBC article is written in formal English. Simple example is that these two mean the same thing “The UN says the drug trade, which helps fund the insurgency, threatens the legitimacy of the Afghan state” and “The West has long said that money from the drugs trade funds the
Taliban and fuels corruption and crime in Afghanistan, weakening the state it is
attempting to support.” BBC used fewer words to convey the same meaning as Al
Jazeera.
There were no outside quotes used in the Al Jazeera article, only references from the UN report. BBC was thorough with the reporting and had quotes.
I don't agree with this part. I think both writing styles are plain and BBC used the term "Taliban" here when not all Talibans are insurgents.
Well thank you for the great post there Marasi. Thanks for saying it is well written, I will make the addendum and then submit the essay.