Coverage
Both chosen articles were accessed from an online news database, and were not published in any printed form from the same sources. Finding both articles was not as easy as going to the homepage and making a selection, for both articles on CTV.ca and Foxnews.com; I had to search for the specific topic of “religion in the news”. Looking at the CTV.ca article “Google refuses to take down anti-Muslim clip”, there is one picture of a protest, where several Muslim are gathered together, all appearing to be yelling, with their hand up, point to the sky, or possible holding up one finger, as to symbolize “number one”. The same story from foxnews.com, titled “Google will not remove anti-Islam film from YouTube following White House request for review”, also has a picture, a frame from a video that can be accessed on their website. The picture includes what looks to be a car set on fire, with some sort of armed men in the back ground. The similarity of these pictures is that they both insinuate violence, and suggest that the results of this anti-Muslim clip and where it can be accessed has caused an outrage in the Muslim community. The titles of both articles are bolded, lengthy and not completely capitalized, and are both negative, using words like “refuses”. Neither article was very long, and got right to the point, stating the important facts that would matter to the available audience. I imagine that in a printed newspaper, that neither of these would have made front page, given the difficulty I had attempting to find the selected stories.
First Impressions
“Google will not remove anti-Islam film from YouTube following White House request for review”
This title is neither excited nor brief, leaving little to the imagination for the reader. The entire point of the article is stated, minus a few details, in the headline, making it wordy and very unappealing to the reader. The first paragraph/sentence of the article insinuated that Google’s refusal to remove “Innocence of Muslims” in North America has sparked acts of violence across the Middle East and North Africa. This introduction to the issue being addressed in the article gives a very negative outlook on not only Google, but the citizens of the Middle East and North Africa, regarding their actions towards the video clip, using words like “raging”. The overall message received as the reader is that the situation at hand is not positive whatsoever, relying on the violence and dismay from Muslim people to really emphasise the negativity of the situation.
“Google refuses to take down anti-Muslim clip”
The title of this article is less wordy than the other piece; it gives away the overall message of the story, without giving everything away. The situation being explained is defined at a “refusal” by some parts, resulting in “restrictions” for others, which again gives a negative outlook on the rest of the article to follow. Unlike the first article, the opening in this piece does not use specific names of countries being restricted; it instead uses the clever word play of “certain countries”, to avoid offending anyone. The violence that has resulted because of Google’s choices is not exactly defined in the title or opening, but is instead foreshadowed by the use of words like “restricting” and “anti-Muslim”, which both suggest a negative vibe, that will be explained later in the article.
Language
The language used in both articles is extremely negative, with the words “refuses”, “raging”, and “restricted” being repeated several times. These words are just the tip of the ice berg that, which reveals more use of strong, harsh words and sentences regarding YouTube’s “standards” and “guidelines” for uploading videos. There are not so much stereotypes made in either article, but more so generalizations of groups of people and their actions. As we have previously discussed, using the term “Middle East” to describe the Muslim citizens in Egypt, India, Libya and surrounding countries is neither correct or polite. It is the same as Canadians preferring “Canadians” over “North Americans”, we do not appreciate generalizations like that, and yet both the Canadian and American sourced articles use the term “Middle East”. The foxnews.com article touches more on the politics of the situation, being from the United States. This article speaks of the United Embassy, and the Obama administration, while the CTVnews.ca article stays away from mentioning the United States politics and government figures, to stay more on the topic about Google and the fact that the video is still viral, as it is a Canadian source, and we have not been directly affected like the United States.
The topic of religion feels awkwardly avoided throughout both pieces. The mention of Muslims and their dismay from the video is displayed many times, but not in terms of their religion, more so the violence they have caused from the insults displayed in “Innocence of Muslims”. All in all, both pieces run a very negative, assertive tone, along with the awkward avoidance of religion, even though religion plays a huge role in the whole existence of this issue.
Sources
In the foxnews.com article, many sources are identified, including the United States president, Barak Obama, Press Secretary Jay Carney, and Secretary of State, Hilary Clinton. The quotes from these people display a use of fact, but also opinion, which makes sense, as they are representing the government that was attacked by Islam/Muslim people during protests, so they somewhat deserve to have an opinion on the situation. On the other hand, the CTVnews.ca article does not include political opinions or arguments, being from a Canadian source, we do not have any political ties to the event at hand. Together, both articles contain statements from both YouTube and Google spokespeople, outlining their guidelines and standards regarding public videos and their contents. The spokespeople from both groups display their standpoint in the situation very politely and to the point, to avoid preference over one side to another between the United States and Muslim populated countries, making it clear that “different opinions” may be expressed on their websites.
Point of View
The point of view from these pieces is from a North American stand point, no Muslim people’s opinions are expressed. The said “good guys” in these articles are the American citizens that were affected by the attacks against their government, and the “bad guys” are by far the Islam/Muslim people that are apparently “raging” against the United States embassy. The CTVnews.ca article serves as more of an “outsiders” point of view, like the mediator of the situation. The Canadian article doesn’t contain opinions, but more facts, and does not create the idea that there are “good guys” and “bad guys” in this situation. The overall voice/tone of the CTVnews.ca article serves as a third party opinion to the mess that is this “Innocence of Muslims" video in the United States and the Middle East and surrounding countries, it does not contain a negative voice, or an opinionated voice, it simply weighs in on both sides of the story without drawing negativity to one side or another. The United States is of course going to be on their own side, and only voice things that put them in the favor of the public and media, while publicly insulting the Islam people, making them seem like a violent, outraged people. Being that foxnews.com is an American source, these voices are strongly present.
Constraints
With the CTVnews.ca article, the writer had to be sure that no sides were picked. Merely weighing in on the subject matter at hand, they could not be as opinionated as the American sourced article, as it would make our country and government seem like an opinionated group of people. We are entitled to our own opinion, but we want to avoid picking sides as to not upset anyone from either side. This put a constraint on what exactly the writer could say on the topic itself, other than the straight facts.
The foxnews.com article however had to do the complete opposite. With the alleged attacks on the U.S embassy by the Islam people, if any American sourced articles were to sound “pro” Muslim, it could and would cause uproar by American citizens, accusing the publisher to be “anti” American. The constraints on the foxnews.com article followed these guidelines. The writer was very opinionated, and made sure to place all comments made by American political figures in a positive light. These constraints somewhat revolved around the political party of the United States, and Google’s opinions on the matter. As far as economic restraints go, no matter which way the story is sold, controversy will be made, and the story will sell, so there was not much of a constraint in that area.
Impact
The coverage from these two articles has mixed attitudes towards religion. They avoid the topic of religion, while making sure that it is seen as a serious subject. The fact that there is no “religious” section on any of these news sites even more expresses the awkwardness publishers feel when talking about the subject of religion and religious controversies and scandals. The story itself suggests that competing religions bring nothing but problems, and while most religions are about keeping the peace and worshiping God’s will, the people of these articles are not acting peaceful, and are creating a false illusion of what religion really is, which is highlighted in news media articles like these two. Religion is not supposed to be about competing to be superior and engaging in violence, yet a reader would assume so after reading pieces like these.