Last February 24, 2009, elected President Barack gives his first address to the nation in a joint session of Congress, voicing out his plans for the country, with regard to the current economic crisis the US and the rest of the world is suffering. Briefly after the address, Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal responded with the side prepared by the Republicans, calling Obma’s plan flawed and irresponsible.
The two articles from the US, The New York Times Obama Vows, ‘We will rebuild’ and ‘Recover’ and CNN’s Obama outlines ambitious agenda for ‘lasting prosperity’, both have a bias towards President Obama and his actions to address the current financial crisis (Zeleny). The bulk of the news focuses on the highlights of Obama’s speech, seemingly supporting him in whatever course of action he takes. On the other hand, The China Post’s Republicans call Obama’s plan irresponsible leans more towards the Republicans, though it also presents the other side, which is that of Obama (The China Post).
Even with the news focused on the Republican’s rebuttal of Obama’s plan, it was also able to mention the side of Obama. Of the three abovementioned articles, the biases were not that much evident because they try to give information based on the speeches by Obama and Jindal. The leanings of the news were determined by determining which side it highlights more, rather than which side it agrees or disagrees with. The intended audience for the NYTimes and CNN news reports is those who support Obama and his administration. Most of these people have Democratic leanings because they support Obama and his action plans.
On the other hand, The China Post’s intended audience are those interested not only with Obama and the Democrats, but also those who are inclined towards the Republicans, and their rebuttals of the current administrations actions to address the financial crisis. The public opinion elicited by these articles would depend on how they were framed. The news that highlights Obama’s course of action for a ‘better’ future would surely attract the attention of those who have high hopes for the man (CNNPolitics). Their reception and reaction of the news would be mostly positive.
On the other hand, news which focuses on Obama’s ‘flawed’ plans would elicit negative reception and reaction from the readers (The China Post). Those who contradict Obama could use the article as a basis of their actions or opinions regarding the matter. There is really not much difference from US and non-US sources when delivering the news. Both of them try to keep the news unbiased, sticking only to the event or personality in focus, rather than injecting their own thoughts on it. One difference though is that US news sources, when reporting events from US, would be more in depth and tackle more detail, as compared to non-US sources.
Non-US sources often give a general perspective of US news, rather than giving out much deeper information related to the topic. For me, the most effective of the speeches was that of Obama, as compared to that of Jindal. Putting all biases aside, Obama’s speech was more substantial as he offers solutions to problems rather than bad-mouthing the other side. He puts the blame on both Republicans and Democrats, and then assumes responsibility to initiating change. On the other hand, Jindal’s speech was more intended to stain the other side’s name.
He points out flaws in the plans, but fails to offer a concrete suggestion of how to do it right. If we weigh the speeches’ relevance, Obama’s was more important than that of Jindal. Works Cited: CNNPolitics. “Obama Outlines Ambitious Agenda for ‘Lasting Prosperity'”. 2009. March 4 2009. <http://edition. cnn. com/2009/POLITICS/02/24/obama. speech/>. The China Post. “Republicans Call Obama’s Plan Irresponsible”. 2009. March 4 2009. <http://www. chinapost. com. tw/international/americas/2009/02/25/197697/Republicans-call. htm>. Zeleny, Jeff. “Obama Vows, ‘We Will Rebuild’ and ‘Recover’ ” The New York Times 2009: A1.