USA Today and The New York Times interpreted the Afghan Poll differently. USA Today only focused on the statistics that supported rising confidence in the country’s direction. On the contrary, The New York Times used the statistics to point out that Afghans are losing faith in the nation’s path.
USA Today based its article on the statistic that said that only 6 percent of the people ranked security as the biggest problem in their area. It brushed off the other concerns by stating “Afghans are surprisingly confident about the direction of their country even as NATO forces battle a pro-Taliban insurgency in southern and eastern provinces and the violence begins to threaten other places that previously had been considered safe.”
The New York Times took a different approach and analyzed the statistics by comparing them to a 2004 poll that showed higher levels of confidence than the current poll.
The difference in the way these stories were written proves that the media often distort the truth. The angles of the stories make them unbalanced. It seems as though the writer of each story is trying to twist the facts to fit his or her headline. Instead of informing, the articles confuse the readers. I believe that the article should state the statistics and the facts and let the reader interpret the information for him or herself. There is no need to say whether the confidence levels rose or fell. Instead, the writer could just state the results in a concise manner and then show the results of the 2004 poll. This way, the reader can look at each category and decide which areas Afghans are confident in or not. Also, there is no balance of issues in the articles because the writers focus on few statistics to draw generalizations.
Pertaining to balance of people, the sources interviewed in the articles are all experts. The reporters do not bother to interview a person of Afghan descent of a regular citizen with an opinion. Sometimes the view of a regular person can provide more insight than the opinion of a bureaucrat or an expert.
I would argue the NYT story is better because it has more heft and depth. I call this Journalism of Discernment. And I would disagree that a news story should not interpret - especially with a complex subject like this.
ReplyDelete