There is also surplus information given in the Times, which we don’t see elsewhere, the information on “Stradivarius Violins”, which is hardly necessary and really superfluous.
The final article Newsweek seeks to uphold American notions on the incident, and is fairly sparse with giving facts about the plane or those involved, unlike the other two articles which lavish facts upon the reader. This article states the minimum cruising altitude for the planes was “500 feet” differentiating from the “350 metres”, stated in the Times (875 feet). The fact that it is reported lower in this article could pertain to the fact, if the plane was lower in subsequent revelations, they could always say this lower figure to cover the low altitude.
This article unlike the others, believes America is slowly becoming reviled throughout Europe. In the article it infers that this anti American feeling was already emanating due to many perceiving an Italian airliner in 1980 was “shot down by a US missile.” This anti American aura is alluded to, with the use of this quote in the latter part of the article trying to make the reader grasp the idea, that America even before this incident happened had negative vibes disseminating from Europe.
The way the facts are used are further enhanced by the language, which is used in a range of ways. We can see immediately the use of sensationalistic language in the Mirror referring to the gondola as a “Death Car.” This use of a metaphor whilst personifying the gondola, all create this vivid image of a pseudo-tomb emulated by the gondola in which the occupants spent their last moments. This can also be seen in the lead paragraph with hyperbolic language used to empathise and achieve audience identification by using words such as “plunged.” Also the efficacious use of a verb and an adverb, “Dangling perilously” conjure up this highly exaggerated image which is stereo typical of a tabloid.
The headline states the jet “slices” through the cable contrasting with the broadsheet which says “clips.” Here we again can see how the Mirror subtly tries to evoke an anti American feeling describing it as a premeditated, deliberative action with using “slices.”
The broadsheet takes a more realistic, neutral stance by using “cuts” not inferring that it was a preconceived action. Whereas Newsweek would try to shun any claims America was totally at fault by using “clips”, would pertain to an unintentional action.
The tabloid is also very graphical in how it describes the incident using words such as “tangled” and “smashed” all with the ultimate view in mind of influencing the audience, and arousing vexation and enmity toward the pilot. Whilst using such pictorial language to satiate the readers curiosity factor, which can clearly be seen with the narrative structure. The influential pull quote:
“It opened up like a cardboard box”, the simile again would try to manipulate the audience into taking an ardently anti American view, whilst also being an example of journalese in its repetition throughout the article.
This contrasts with the broadsheet in that there is hardly any hyperbolic language, only restrained in use such as “crumpled”, note, not used by journalist. It is generally much more factual, whilst requiring a fore knowledge in military aviation as regards to the description of the plane. The complexity of the language is clearly visible:
“The Prowler is used to jam enemy signals electronically. It can also fire anti-radiation missiles…” This newspaper unlike the tabloid which is a mainstream text, would only appeal to those of a particular intellectual ability, thus the effects of tabloidese aren’t manifest in this article.
The tabloid and Newsweek are not dissimilar unlike the broadsheet, which is quite different. As with the tabloid, Newsweek builds up this graphical image of a quiescent and picturesque, idyll “Alpine river valley” being the anthesis against the American military might which has blighted the area. The pilots referred to in colloquial terms “Jocks” pertaining to a boisterous, brazen type who “Hotdog” a symbolism of America between the cables, exemplifying the view that maybe these pilots were exceeding the rules. This opinionated writing of the pilots transcends into a slightly exaggerated picture as seen with the tabloid. Again a pun is used to describe the wires as being “high tension”, would reflect the tension caused by the crash and the consequential tension the locals in the area felt. This is embodied with how the Italians raised a “collective howl” a metaphor alluding to a wolf like pack, united against America, trying to evoke emotion with the audience and change their viewpoint to realise the plight of the Italians.
This article takes an unusual stance on the incident as it is predominantly impartial with both sides being addressed in proportionate ways, whilst elevating the pilots saying “these guys were good.” It doesn’t seek to belittle the pilots or be derogatory towards them, however we are able to ascertain that the Americans are being defended, due to the journalists perception that America was being denigrated throughout Europe due to the crash, revitalising further anti American feelings.
These feelings are clearly seen in the tabloid, manipulating the audience to be imbued with this pro British, anti American stance. Being detrimental towards the pilots and totally bias in the way that it views the incident with no American side being regarded, further emphasised with the ingenious use of sensational language.
The broadsheet is a further differentiation in how the language supports the typical standing with the article being impartial, whilst unmunipulating in trying to influence, as seen with the tabloid, the audience or portray a bias view. In the language being of a particular calibre, the overemphasising isn’t there, which in turn doesn’t give way to the hyped up, theatrical standpoint taken by the tabloid.
Another important aspect is the way in which the articles use interviews to attain certain desirable effects. The tabloid especially is very deliberately sculptured in the way that it is choice in its interviews, in order to achieve audience identification, whilst proclaiming its anti American ideology. We are first acquainted in the initial paragraph to the graphic tabloid quotes. Such as from a fireman at the incident, saying the occupants “stood no chance.” This kind of quote is only integrated to evoke feelings of damnation towards America and the pilots, which isn’t ascribable in the other two articles.
The tabloid is also fixated with human-interest stories, shying away from politics striving to fulfil its readership needs, as we can see with the focus on a British couple. We are presented with an array of facts regarding the couple “Briton Neil 35” giving us surplus information such as his age whilst telling us where they live “Heathfield, Sussex.” Despite being ironic, due to them not being involved, this imposing information seeks to acquire reader personalisation in making the reader empathise to give them a graphical insight into what it was like, at the same time disseminating the pro British standpoint.
In designating an inordinate amount of column space to this prominent interview, we are left with the Italian perspective.
“If pilots want to put their own lives at risk it is not acceptable innocent tourists should take the consequences.” In doing this, the article seeks to degradate America and in doing so, the article is enveloped with a biased viewpoint.
The tabloid differs from the broadsheet and Newsweek in that we have with these two articles an impartial standpoint taken and so the interviews are varied. As we can denounce in the broadsheet which is of a contrast from the tabloid in that it brings in the Pentagon and how it
“Expressed its deepest sympathy for those killed”, the tabloid doesn’t bring in any American view; this however is another ploy to deprecate America in an attempt to create the illusion they ‘don’t care’. The broadsheet would interweave this into the article to show that the Americans did care, whilst also giving the Italian view.
The Italian Deputy Defence Minister Massimo Brutti said there was “very strict rules” for flying, which is a more supportive view of the American warplanes as opposed to the tabloid which states the Americans should “stop these silly war games.” There is a more respected attitude to the Americans, rather than verbally bash them which the tabloid seeks to do.
The broadsheet presents the interviews and what is said by those interviewed as succinctly as possible. The tabloid however seeks to dramatise those interviewed and sometimes masquerade what people have to say with their own viewpoint, due to interviewing less and sensationalising what little they do say. The broadsheet has shorter, but more and a greater variety, from different standpoints, which in turn makes for a more realistic picture.
The same traits we are able to recognise in Newsweek with an impartial view taken in the assimilation of a range of interviews. In the first paragraph we can clearly see how the article has alluded to the words of the Prime Minister Romano Prodi in judging the crash as “an act of recklessness.” We can see here how the article would seek to highlight the fact that the Prime Minister was being assumptious without being fully fledged with all the facts, regarding the incident. This statement could of course be apprehended as a political standoff intimating a detrimental view of America. This kind of statement would only usually be found in a tabloid newspaper, however it is being used here to make manifest the wrath that America had to endure.
We see also the American perspective which really confirms the article with an interview with a US ambassador in which he states:
“The plane was clearly flying below minimum…altitude.” This shows how the article is balanced with the American military views and the Italian views weighed up whilst ultimately accepting the penalties for the accident, quite a revolutionary thing for an American magazine.
Whilst half of the article is about Italian and the American interviews, there is also the standpoint taken by an American women and this is what makes it so dissimilar to the other two articles. Here we are presented for the first time that those in America are burdened with the same military troubles. The women says the
”Pentagon…should…leave the rest of us alone.” This has carefully been amalgamated into the rest of the article to dissipate any illusion that America is unfeeling an alienated from the rest of the world, and to show that Americans are blighted by the same problem. Also it would seek to spurn any thoughts of debasement toward America and defends it using this interview to this effect.
The layout of the articles is also an important feature to notice, with each article having its own peculiar layout, as seen with the tabloid. This article fulfils the expected conventions and preconceived notions of what a tabloid newspaper should entail. With a bold type headline, a large font and two pictures and a diagram, we also see media representations to make the apprehension of the incident simplified. With labelled diagrams, to clarify in a pictorial way the incident whilst trying to educe emotion by means of a graphical illustration. The construction is also familiar with short paragraphs and a bold type lead paragraph.
This is a juxtapose against the long drawn out paragraphs seen in the broadsheet and Newsweek, a typical broadsheet convention exuded here. The broadsheet however contravenes its usual convention, in that with this article we have three examples of media representation. This is unusual for a broadsheet, which usually employs sufficient textual detail, to suffice the readership, here however it has resorted to illustrations to convey the incident.
The Newsweek however is different to the rest with no visual representations given, but does include a sub-headline, beneath a bold plain typeface, whilst having an enlarged bold letter to inaugurate the article.
Conclusively, looking at the articles from a general standpoint, I think that the broadsheet gives the best portrayal of the incident, whilst delegating to the reader a sufficient amount of facts to make them aware of what happened. I also think that we’re able to ascertain what really happened without the dramatic presentation of facts, along with the distortion of truth found in the tabloid, which blows the incident out of proportion. With the innovative use of vivid illustrations and enlightening detail along with an impartial view, we are clearly able to encompass the magnitude of the incident.
Although Newsweek is a definitive, it lacked the needed depth to make the reader visualise the scene of carnage, whilst giving the impression of being too pro American. This resulted in the shirking of guilt for the crash, trying to shift some of the blame to the Italians.
The complete opposite is seen in the tabloid, in the disparagement of America, and the elevation of pro British notions that America was at fault, whereas the broadsheet takes a neutral standpoint not seeking to promote or belittle America for their actions.
