Events in Syria provide for various article objectives: direct and informative vs. detailed with shock value

The conflict and gunfire in Syria has been covered heavily in the news for weeks by countries all over the world and has repeatedly appeared on U.S. headlines as new turmoil occurs. The latest news was centered around the four-day Muslim holiday Eid al-Adha. Recognizing the importance of religion in the country and among the people, the rebel Free Syrian Army (FSA) and the President Bashar al-Assad and his government agreed to a ceasefire in Syria. Both cnn.com (United States) and Al Jazeera.com (published from the country Qatar, which lies near the Persian Gulf) covered the truce as well as its failure. Gunfire, protests, and car bombs erupted as early as this morning (October 26), just as Eid al-Adha started. 

Coverage by CNN is informational, but gets its facts secondhand.

Ceasefire is violated in Syria after fighting erupted Friday morning.

(RT.com)

CNN’s news article entitled “Is this a truce? Within hours, bullets again flying in Syria” gives the latest information on what is going on in Syria although it lacks quotes from witnesses or government officials in the area and direct information. Though some quotes are present, they are often paraphrased and could have been inserted from another previous article. Because of the lack of this inside information, CNN set up its article less as a breaking news story and more in my opinion as an in depth article of the events that occurred with more details that create shock value and human interest. Throughout the story, CNN uses citations such as “Syrian media reported….”, “rebel fighters told Al Jazeera news agency that…”, and “CNN can’t confirm reports of violence…” This could be due to the lack of time available to the writers to gather information before releasing the story and the restricted access to the Syrian government for an American journalist. So the article created several bullet points to highlight the irony of what has happened after the truce including “At least 30 people were reportedly killed across Syria Friday.” With the shocking details on the death toll and conflicts that arose today as well as the beginning of the story including information on a car bomb in Damascus that killed several people, most of whom were children, exemplifies CNN’s attempt to capture the audience using human interest and tragedy. This will most likely be effective as the audience continues to check back in for more information and to find out more about the people of Syria. 

 

Al Jazeera gives the information on Syria’s events quickly and efficiently.

Protesters chant against the government. (guardian.co.uk)

The Al Jazeera article, “Syria clashes ‘violate’ Eid ceasefire”, describes the fighting that broke out between the Syrian government and the rebels this morning and gives coverage to the protesters chanting against President Bashar al-Assad and the government. The article explains how the group Al-Nusra Front, whose members had already stated that they would not follow the truce, was included in the rebel fighters that began conflict around a military base this morning. In response, the government’s army bombed the neighboring village Deir Sharqi. In addition to providing a couple direct quotes, Al Jazeera also makes sure to mention the effects of ceasefire all over Syria: “’The ceasefire has collapsed in several regions of Syria but there is still less violence and fewer victims than usual,’ Rami Abdel Rahman… told the AFP news agency on Friday.” While CNN mostly centered its article on the destruction and fighting that occurred despite the ceasefire, Al Jazeera mentions that despite the several violations of ceasefire, some regions of Syria are actually experiencing more peace than usual due to the holiday. The story also includes information on the protesters and their anti-regime chants in Deraa and the capitol Damascus.

 

The same Syrian events inspire two different forms of coverage.

 It seems that Al Jazeera was able to acquire more information about what is going in Syria than CNN, possibly due to its closer proximity. As a result, the article is shorter and to the point. The information is very factual and informative. Like CNN, it seems as though the article was written with the mindset of acquiring more information as more becomes available because of a few loose ends and alleged comments. While the articles are about the same topic and do include a lot of the same or similar information, CNN seems to focus more on the ceasefire and the horrid events that violated it while Al Jazeera wrote a more straight-forward and informative story. Neither CNN’s article nor Al Jazeera’s story seemed to contain bias or focus on the writer’s opinion and both articles seem to have received their information through reliable sources (despite the fact that CNN often used a secondhand source). This leads me to trust both articles although each has a different objective in relaying the story. In the future I will probably use Al Jazeera’s articles to find more direct and inside information on the very latest news from Syria and use CNN for details and analysis.

The digital divide in the U.S. and how the mobile phone problem trends highlight the divide

While opening an internet page may be as second nature to some of us as walking, many people in the United States still do not have regular access to the internet or even a computer in their homes. The main groups of people with this problem are "disproportionately underemployed, less educated, and Black or Hispanic (U.S. Census, 2009b)" according to Kevin Guirdy's research. The division is evident not only in people's homes but also in college institutions. And the division is quite clear when some citizens use a mobile device, library, or school for their main connection to the web while others surround themselves with the latest Apple technology and use multiple devices in addition to a personal computer or laptop. The socioeconomic divide among American citizens extends to their use of the internet and personal computers. Many people cannot afford their own computer or cannot afford multiple devices and so decide to combine their primary internet source with their mobile device to save money. An article from the American Medical Informatics Association states “The 2000 Census found that although about half of all United States homes had computers, households with lower incomes were much less likely to own computers than were higher income households.”

The trend in mobile device problems doesn’t change the digital divide, but more shows the effects of the divide. 

 Often those without access to personal computers and internet in their homes will invest in a smartphone and use that device as their primary source of web connection. This correlates with the Pew Research Center's findings that Hispanics and Blacks experience more of the mobile phone problems including dropped calls, unwanted sales calls, unwanted texts, and slow download speeds. Because the people without regular access to the internet at home are most likely Black or Hispanic, they are more likely to rely on a smartphone for internet connection in place of a personal computer. Statistics show that non-white cell owners are more likely to experience mobile phone problems on a weekly basis such as 53% of Hispanics experiencing slow download times frequently and only 44% of Whites experiencing slow download times frequently. I don’t think that the statistics shown for these mobile trends affect the digital divide, but they highlight the issues and different experiences of mobile devices that lower class people and minorities experience. 

However, perhaps the shift to smartphones will put most people on the same mobile device level in the future.

Smartphones are blatantly on the rise in the U.S. society with over fifty percent of Americans using and owning a smartphone. Though I do not have a smartphone, I feel that if I owned one, I would replace time on my laptop with time accessing the internet on my phone. There is a definite shift in using smartphones for internet access due to accessibility and mobility, so maybe in the future, even those in higher classes who do own a personal computer and have internet access in their homes will use their smartphones for the majority of their web surfing like the lower socioeconomic classes who rely on their cells for internet.