So there's nothing better in participating in a blog assignment than having the freedom to go off on my own tangents. And this Fox News clip opportunity is PERFECT, because i'm in the goofiest mood.
So this douche show host from Red Eye on Fox news basically gets comedians Doug Benson (starred on Friends as Yeti Danny's creepy party friend, also appears on VH1 regularly, cough) and some other bunch of z-listers and they rag on canada, particularly their military efforts in Afghanistan, military strength and position on the border with "the most POWERFUL country in the world". Keep in mind that this is a "satirical" news piece that is comedic in nature.
Fox News apologized and Doug has changed his myspace title to "I Love Canada (for reals)" as outrage poured across youtube and facebook. His upcoming comedy show in Edmonton has been cancelled, and people are regaining familiarity with the definition of satire. I watched the video out of curiosity and like many others, I was pretty pissed, lol. Not so much at the comments that were made, but at the shocking ignorance of the nature of the discussion. But then afterwords, I took the time to think about it, and something came over me.
As stupid as these comments are, it's not really Canadian of us to lash out and demand an apology from the people on the show. I feel like the smarter, truer-Canadian thing to do is just look at all these comments and laugh at them...like we usually do. Haha, silly Americans, there you go again with your loud little mouths! Besides, we know that Europe is laughing at them too, because they probably know less about Europe than they do about Canada. And as a half-yank, I think it would suit both countries best if we could just make as much fun of this event as possible. I'm totally expecting material about this on Rick Mercer and 22 Minutes. Hell, even if SNL did something about it with Mike Meyers, Jim Carrey, Norm MacDonald (if he's still funny) and some other canadians, it would be awesome. I think NBC would be down, Lorne Michaels (SNL's executive producer and creator) is Canadian! He should take advantage of this opportunity like Tina Fey did with Sarah Palin (I still shudder every time I type her name).
Times are tough and laughter is an awesome solution. The more there is to bitch about means the more there is to make fun of! So please, Canadians and Americans, put aside any minor differences (foreign policy, international diplomacy, respect for immigration, etc.) and laugh! And think of the opportunity.
Monday, March 23, 2009
Sunday, March 22, 2009
The Oakland Police
This entry is a bit of a sidestep from the others because it covers an ongoing story that has been largely ignored by our mainstream media; Democracy Now has been covering the rising troubles in Oakland's police force and criminal justice system since January.
The news is presented differently between the two sources in many ways. Most importantly, however, is the coverage of the initial murder that sparked uproar and criticism of the city's justice system. Juan Gonzales of Democracy Now explains, " A former transit officer in Oakland, California has been arrested on murder charges in connection to the killing of Oscar Grant. Grant is the unarmed African American man who was shot dead laying face-down on an Oakland train platform on New Year’s Day."
The event led to a large number of protests and the eventual arrest of over a hundred citizens; the transit officer was initially not arrested, then left to Nevada, where he stayed for around a month until his arrest warrant was released. Democracy Now also reports that the former transit officer was released on a 3 million dollar bail by a source unknown to the public. This situation is the cause of a murmuring dissent throughout Oakland, a town with a population of around 400,000 and unfortunately high rates of poverty and unemployment.
The protests grew out of anger in the initial shooting and even further when there was no response or accountability from the BART (Bay Area Rapid Transit) agency, the criminal justice system, the mayor or state representatives for a lingering period of time. However, this dissent was masked in the mainstream media by more of that economic crisis hysteria. Is this the Terrorism scare 2.0, our economy is in drastic collapse? Why is an enemy constructed for the media to focus on when they could simply report the news around the world?
In contrast, CBC's article mentions nothing about these past events. The headline reads, "Gunman kills 3 officers, wounds 4th in Oakland, Calif." The article continues, "Three California police officers are dead and a fourth is in critical condition after a shootout with a crime suspect in Oakland." And it concludes with the short sentence, "The suspect was armed with an assault rifle, police said."
The CBC report doesn't even hint at a past conflict or growing dissent within the population, nor the crimes committed within the justice system and transit system - it displays the officers as sole victims, (although nobody deserves to be shot, don't get me wrong), and the concluding sentence seems as though it was inserted to leave the reader with the chilling reminder of the criminal's violent actions. In contrast, Democracy Now would question whether the victim was harrassed by the officers or armed with an assault rifle as stated by the police department.
Discourse is again my essential factor in comparing the two networks' coverage, looking at word choice for the headlines and key sentences. Filters or news management may also come into play, with Democracy Now interviewing members of the community and CBC interviewing the California Attorney General and the Oakland Police Department.
This course of events makes me feel wary of the news; why was this seemingly historic moment not widely reported on? And for what reasons?
The news is presented differently between the two sources in many ways. Most importantly, however, is the coverage of the initial murder that sparked uproar and criticism of the city's justice system. Juan Gonzales of Democracy Now explains, " A former transit officer in Oakland, California has been arrested on murder charges in connection to the killing of Oscar Grant. Grant is the unarmed African American man who was shot dead laying face-down on an Oakland train platform on New Year’s Day."
The event led to a large number of protests and the eventual arrest of over a hundred citizens; the transit officer was initially not arrested, then left to Nevada, where he stayed for around a month until his arrest warrant was released. Democracy Now also reports that the former transit officer was released on a 3 million dollar bail by a source unknown to the public. This situation is the cause of a murmuring dissent throughout Oakland, a town with a population of around 400,000 and unfortunately high rates of poverty and unemployment.
The protests grew out of anger in the initial shooting and even further when there was no response or accountability from the BART (Bay Area Rapid Transit) agency, the criminal justice system, the mayor or state representatives for a lingering period of time. However, this dissent was masked in the mainstream media by more of that economic crisis hysteria. Is this the Terrorism scare 2.0, our economy is in drastic collapse? Why is an enemy constructed for the media to focus on when they could simply report the news around the world?
In contrast, CBC's article mentions nothing about these past events. The headline reads, "Gunman kills 3 officers, wounds 4th in Oakland, Calif." The article continues, "Three California police officers are dead and a fourth is in critical condition after a shootout with a crime suspect in Oakland." And it concludes with the short sentence, "The suspect was armed with an assault rifle, police said."
The CBC report doesn't even hint at a past conflict or growing dissent within the population, nor the crimes committed within the justice system and transit system - it displays the officers as sole victims, (although nobody deserves to be shot, don't get me wrong), and the concluding sentence seems as though it was inserted to leave the reader with the chilling reminder of the criminal's violent actions. In contrast, Democracy Now would question whether the victim was harrassed by the officers or armed with an assault rifle as stated by the police department.
Discourse is again my essential factor in comparing the two networks' coverage, looking at word choice for the headlines and key sentences. Filters or news management may also come into play, with Democracy Now interviewing members of the community and CBC interviewing the California Attorney General and the Oakland Police Department.
This course of events makes me feel wary of the news; why was this seemingly historic moment not widely reported on? And for what reasons?
Friday, March 20, 2009
British MP and Iraq-War Protester Barred Entry to Canada
I will take full advantage of the blog format to display my emotions on this story, but only in this introduction. Jason Kenney, you suck.
Now please put that and other predispositions aside (as any ethical journalist should try to do when reporting the news). British Member of Parliament George Halloway, known for his controversial protests against the Iraq invasion, was denied entry to the country today for his speaking tour. I know through my own experiences with border-crossing that my predispositions with guards and the immigration process might affect my reporting and discourse for this story. I therefore have to place myself in the opposite position on the spectrum and get both sides of the story as fairly as possible.
In this entry I'll be discussing two articles on the story by the Toronto Star and the National Post - two Canadian newspapers with different perspectives - in order to find out what messages they want to convey through their reporting. Hopefully these comparisons will shed light on their reporting as a whole.
1.How is news presented differently on these different platforms?
The Toronto Star Headline reads: Canada Blocks Outspoken British MP
The National Post Headline reads: British MP Denied Entry to Canada Threatens to Sue Government
In taking a closer look at the headlines, I noticed that while the Star posits Canada as the factor in blocking Halloway's entry, the Post uses Halloway as the main subject/noun in the headline. While each headline is an action, taking the subject and verb from each headline may clarify what i'm getting at; "Canada Blocks" vs. "British MP...Threatens" . In the introductory statement alone, one can begin to see the point of view behind each story.
The opening sentence of the Star article reads, "Canadian officials have denied outspoken anti-war British MP George Galloway entry into Canada on grounds he poses a threat to national security."
The opening sentence of the Post article reads, "An outspoken British MP who's opposed to the war in Afghanistan says he intends to take legal action against the federal government over its decision to refuse him entry to Canada."
These two introductory sentences establish the same message as the headline with mostly the same information, yet constructed in proper sentence form. However, sometimes the more important sentence in an article is its closing; it finalizes the story and embodies what the reader will feel after finishing the article.
The final sentence of the Star article reads, " 'We applaud the Canadian government for keeping George Galloway, a man who thrives on his support of terrorists, out of Canada,' said CJC Co-President Sylvain Abitbol. "
The final sentence of the Post article reads, "New Democrat immigration critic Olivia Chow, meanwhile, called the move "pure censorship." 'That's not a good road to go on,' she said Friday."
It's interesting to note that the two final sentences are opposite of what one would expect given the assumptions we've made from the headline and introductory sentence. I'm not sure if this is done deliberately, but perhaps it is designed to leave the reader with a sense of disapproval in the conclusion, therefore leading the reader to remember the other messages from the article (headline/intro/content) and agree with those views over the final "disagreement". This may be a bit of a stretch, but it's something to notice. I'll try to remember this for future stories.
2. Where and how can you identify some of the following: citizen journalism; public sphere; issues of globalization; humanist photojournalism; war image; filters; discourse; interesting or problematic race/gender representation?
Citizen journalism isn't truly relevant to the article outside of Halloway's denied entry and reporting the truth about this conflict, which citizen journalism is usually involved in (truth and conflict). Filters, i'm not certain if they come in to play or not; discourse, however, is the fundamental factor in comparing these two stories. The tone of these articles varies in position, but not so much in structure. Word choice is my favourite way of conducting my pseudo-discourse analysis, and is an excellent strategy when thinking critically about news and how it's presented. The difference in headlines, for example, says a lot more than the average reader is aware.
3.What did you learn from reading / listening to news from a venue you don’t usually go to? What do YOU have to say about news?
Unfortunately I haven't ventured too far from reading news online; for my next entries I hope to try some different platforms of news, like radio, television news or television shows. I feel like another important factor in online reporting these days is the "Comment" box, where readers can respond and express their opinions if approved by a moderator (who functions mainly to prevent spam and nonsensical posts). More and more readers are taking advantage of the opportunity to "talk back" to news stories, unlike television and radio which, aside from featuring debates, rarely act as two-way media. They are the senders of the message, and we are the receivers. The messages they receive from us comes in ratings, phone-ins, letters. But with online interaction after the articles, more and more websites are able to understand their audience.
Now please put that and other predispositions aside (as any ethical journalist should try to do when reporting the news). British Member of Parliament George Halloway, known for his controversial protests against the Iraq invasion, was denied entry to the country today for his speaking tour. I know through my own experiences with border-crossing that my predispositions with guards and the immigration process might affect my reporting and discourse for this story. I therefore have to place myself in the opposite position on the spectrum and get both sides of the story as fairly as possible.
In this entry I'll be discussing two articles on the story by the Toronto Star and the National Post - two Canadian newspapers with different perspectives - in order to find out what messages they want to convey through their reporting. Hopefully these comparisons will shed light on their reporting as a whole.
1.How is news presented differently on these different platforms?
The Toronto Star Headline reads: Canada Blocks Outspoken British MP
The National Post Headline reads: British MP Denied Entry to Canada Threatens to Sue Government
In taking a closer look at the headlines, I noticed that while the Star posits Canada as the factor in blocking Halloway's entry, the Post uses Halloway as the main subject/noun in the headline. While each headline is an action, taking the subject and verb from each headline may clarify what i'm getting at; "Canada Blocks" vs. "British MP...Threatens" . In the introductory statement alone, one can begin to see the point of view behind each story.
The opening sentence of the Star article reads, "Canadian officials have denied outspoken anti-war British MP George Galloway entry into Canada on grounds he poses a threat to national security."
The opening sentence of the Post article reads, "An outspoken British MP who's opposed to the war in Afghanistan says he intends to take legal action against the federal government over its decision to refuse him entry to Canada."
These two introductory sentences establish the same message as the headline with mostly the same information, yet constructed in proper sentence form. However, sometimes the more important sentence in an article is its closing; it finalizes the story and embodies what the reader will feel after finishing the article.
The final sentence of the Star article reads, " 'We applaud the Canadian government for keeping George Galloway, a man who thrives on his support of terrorists, out of Canada,' said CJC Co-President Sylvain Abitbol. "
The final sentence of the Post article reads, "New Democrat immigration critic Olivia Chow, meanwhile, called the move "pure censorship." 'That's not a good road to go on,' she said Friday."
It's interesting to note that the two final sentences are opposite of what one would expect given the assumptions we've made from the headline and introductory sentence. I'm not sure if this is done deliberately, but perhaps it is designed to leave the reader with a sense of disapproval in the conclusion, therefore leading the reader to remember the other messages from the article (headline/intro/content) and agree with those views over the final "disagreement". This may be a bit of a stretch, but it's something to notice. I'll try to remember this for future stories.
2. Where and how can you identify some of the following: citizen journalism; public sphere; issues of globalization; humanist photojournalism; war image; filters; discourse; interesting or problematic race/gender representation?
Citizen journalism isn't truly relevant to the article outside of Halloway's denied entry and reporting the truth about this conflict, which citizen journalism is usually involved in (truth and conflict). Filters, i'm not certain if they come in to play or not; discourse, however, is the fundamental factor in comparing these two stories. The tone of these articles varies in position, but not so much in structure. Word choice is my favourite way of conducting my pseudo-discourse analysis, and is an excellent strategy when thinking critically about news and how it's presented. The difference in headlines, for example, says a lot more than the average reader is aware.
3.What did you learn from reading / listening to news from a venue you don’t usually go to? What do YOU have to say about news?
Unfortunately I haven't ventured too far from reading news online; for my next entries I hope to try some different platforms of news, like radio, television news or television shows. I feel like another important factor in online reporting these days is the "Comment" box, where readers can respond and express their opinions if approved by a moderator (who functions mainly to prevent spam and nonsensical posts). More and more readers are taking advantage of the opportunity to "talk back" to news stories, unlike television and radio which, aside from featuring debates, rarely act as two-way media. They are the senders of the message, and we are the receivers. The messages they receive from us comes in ratings, phone-ins, letters. But with online interaction after the articles, more and more websites are able to understand their audience.
Friday, March 13, 2009
Late-Night Thoughts on Financial Woetry
The full moon is out tonight and I can't fall asleep, it's almost like a horror movie. Luckily around midnight I managed to catch the half-hour episode of John Stewart's Daily Show. Expecting more political humor and goofery, I was surprised to find the entire episode dedicated to Stewart's interview with CNBC Mad Money Correspondent Jim Cramer, a depart from his regular routine for the show. In the interview, he discussed and criticized Cramer's reporting and CNBC's financial reporting - in particular, the lack of journalistic integrity in CNBC's reporting prior to and now during the economic downturn. In a way, Stewart made a discourse analysis by questioning Cramer and the role his show plays in portraying factual financial news. So, in this entry, when I wake up tomorrow morning (I'm tired now), I'll yap about the differences between the Daily Show and Mad Money and their niches. For now, goodnight!
1.How is news presented differently on these different platforms?
While Stewart's satirical news piece The Daily Show acts as a critic of recent financial behaviour and the mass media's role in the economic crisis, Cramer's Mad Money does little to lead the viewer outside of the woes of wall street. An example of Stewart's critique to the matter is the interview with Jim Cramer, where their discourse leads the viewer to think about or critique the issue at hand. The discourse in Mad Money, on the other hand, often focuses solely on money and criticizing the political spectrum for its lack of assistance. In the interview, Stewart proved this point by showing the audience a clip from Mad Money where Wall Street workers were booing and slandering President Obama for his "absence" during the Wall Street meltdown, despite his funding of over a trillion dollars in taxpayer's bailout money.
2. Where and how can you identify some of the following: citizen journalism; public sphere; issues of globalization; humanist photojournalism; war image; filters; discourse; interesting or problematic race/gender representation?
Citizen journalism is taking effect by displaying the effects of the financial crisis on the citizens and not the wall street brokers or capitol investors. Filters certainly come into play with the CNBC's reporting in comparison to the comedic Daily Show, where news can be presented with satire and criticism. Discourse is a vital factor in determining the audience's reaction to both presentations of news, and differs between the two. Gender representation wasn't displayed in either outlets as a factor, but it was noticable in the clip Stewart aired that the room on Wall Street was full of male investors, with only a handful of females in the room at work.
3.What did you learn from reading / listening to news from a venue you don’t usually go to? What do YOU have to say about news?
From viewing Mad Money and Jim Cramer's presentation of financial news from a critical point of view, I learned that, in some outlets, filters play a heavy role in determining what a reporter can publicly criticize. I don't pay much attention to financial news myself, mainly because I never found it newsworthy; to me, it was strictly a report on the financial movements of Wall Street, not a critique or analysis of financial news internationally. Perhaps now that the economy is in a so-called "crisis", we can expect our news outlets to better express their right to investigate and report financial news ethically and responsibly.
1.How is news presented differently on these different platforms?
While Stewart's satirical news piece The Daily Show acts as a critic of recent financial behaviour and the mass media's role in the economic crisis, Cramer's Mad Money does little to lead the viewer outside of the woes of wall street. An example of Stewart's critique to the matter is the interview with Jim Cramer, where their discourse leads the viewer to think about or critique the issue at hand. The discourse in Mad Money, on the other hand, often focuses solely on money and criticizing the political spectrum for its lack of assistance. In the interview, Stewart proved this point by showing the audience a clip from Mad Money where Wall Street workers were booing and slandering President Obama for his "absence" during the Wall Street meltdown, despite his funding of over a trillion dollars in taxpayer's bailout money.
2. Where and how can you identify some of the following: citizen journalism; public sphere; issues of globalization; humanist photojournalism; war image; filters; discourse; interesting or problematic race/gender representation?
Citizen journalism is taking effect by displaying the effects of the financial crisis on the citizens and not the wall street brokers or capitol investors. Filters certainly come into play with the CNBC's reporting in comparison to the comedic Daily Show, where news can be presented with satire and criticism. Discourse is a vital factor in determining the audience's reaction to both presentations of news, and differs between the two. Gender representation wasn't displayed in either outlets as a factor, but it was noticable in the clip Stewart aired that the room on Wall Street was full of male investors, with only a handful of females in the room at work.
3.What did you learn from reading / listening to news from a venue you don’t usually go to? What do YOU have to say about news?
From viewing Mad Money and Jim Cramer's presentation of financial news from a critical point of view, I learned that, in some outlets, filters play a heavy role in determining what a reporter can publicly criticize. I don't pay much attention to financial news myself, mainly because I never found it newsworthy; to me, it was strictly a report on the financial movements of Wall Street, not a critique or analysis of financial news internationally. Perhaps now that the economy is in a so-called "crisis", we can expect our news outlets to better express their right to investigate and report financial news ethically and responsibly.
Sunday, March 8, 2009
Thoughts on an Early Sunday Morning: March 8th, 2009
Tomorrow is a relative's 54th birthday. Not quite news for the world, but still special to me.
Today, I will watch/explore the news through two different platforms: this time, the online news presented by http://www.cbc.ca compared to that of http://www.bbc.co.uk. I will examine if budget/public funding (as they are both public stations for two different countries) and how they affect the answers to the founding questions below.
1.How is news presented differently on these different platforms?
On www.cbc.ca:
- 3 of 9 "top stories" are local/national - remaining 6 are international
- Categories presented in: Home, World, Canada, Health, Arts and Entertainment, Technology and Science, Money, Consumer Life, Diversions, Weather, Your Voice
On www.bbc.co.uk:
- 1 of 8 "top stories" in the international section are local/national (U.K.) - local stories reserved for U.K./Nat'l section, somewhat similar to CBC's Website
- Categories first displayed by continent, then by Business, Health, Science & Environment, Technology, Entertainment, Also in the News
In discussing the March 8th, 2009 update of Zimbabwean Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai, BBC specifically mentioned that the Prime Minister was grieving his deceased wife in the neighbouring country of Botswana; an important factor in displaying Tsvangirai's power as Prime Minister under President Mugabe's rule. CBC reports the founding information and the news that official government reporters provided, but not much in regards to the opposing perspective. However, most of what BBC reports seems more authentic and researched-into than the story that CBC.ca quickly published.
2. Where and how can you identify some of the following: citizen journalism; public sphere; issues of globalization; humanist photojournalism; war image; filters; discourse; interesting or problematic race/gender representation?
Citizen journalism is more prevalent in the BBC.co.uk article about Tsvangirai's injuries and trip to Botswana in comparison to Cbc.ca's article about the same matter: the website displays pictures of an injured Tsvangirai, his toppled car and other issues Zimbabwe has faced in the past. On the subject of globalization, the issue revolves around the post-colonial Zimbabwe and two conflicting governments; this is further exemplified by BBC.co.uk's story of Tsvangirai fleeing to Botswana, but also reported equally by Cbc.ca (despite their attempt to paint Mugabe as a caring figure by visiting Tsvangirai in the hospital). Race representation may be affected by the article in presenting the two conflicting views of a post-colonial African country; there is no one definable way to represent all Zimbabweans.
The war image of the political crimes in Zimbabwe is being filtered out - not sure for what reason - but it isn't reaching the two main networks being compared in this entry, which shocks me; the images of starving citizens work most effectively against political corruption, yet the major outlets have shown little outside of the faces of Tsvangirai and Mugabe.
3.What did you learn from reading / listening to news from a venue you don’t usually go to? What do YOU have to say about news?
I usually open my Firefox internet browser with a Cbc.ca news feed attached to the home page - it wasn't until I really took a critical look at the website in comparison to www.bbc.co.uk, a larger and wider-distributed public broadcaster, that I saw what Cbc.ca was missing. The BBC's perspective seemed a bit more international with regards to Tsvangirai's whereabouts in comparison to Cbc.ca's lack of foreign information. However, in defence of the CBC, I am accessing this story at an early time during an off-period for news delivery (outside of rush hour, dinner hour news time slot, etc).
Today, I will watch/explore the news through two different platforms: this time, the online news presented by http://www.cbc.ca compared to that of http://www.bbc.co.uk. I will examine if budget/public funding (as they are both public stations for two different countries) and how they affect the answers to the founding questions below.
1.How is news presented differently on these different platforms?
On www.cbc.ca:
- 3 of 9 "top stories" are local/national - remaining 6 are international
- Categories presented in: Home, World, Canada, Health, Arts and Entertainment, Technology and Science, Money, Consumer Life, Diversions, Weather, Your Voice
On www.bbc.co.uk:
- 1 of 8 "top stories" in the international section are local/national (U.K.) - local stories reserved for U.K./Nat'l section, somewhat similar to CBC's Website
- Categories first displayed by continent, then by Business, Health, Science & Environment, Technology, Entertainment, Also in the News
In discussing the March 8th, 2009 update of Zimbabwean Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai, BBC specifically mentioned that the Prime Minister was grieving his deceased wife in the neighbouring country of Botswana; an important factor in displaying Tsvangirai's power as Prime Minister under President Mugabe's rule. CBC reports the founding information and the news that official government reporters provided, but not much in regards to the opposing perspective. However, most of what BBC reports seems more authentic and researched-into than the story that CBC.ca quickly published.
2. Where and how can you identify some of the following: citizen journalism; public sphere; issues of globalization; humanist photojournalism; war image; filters; discourse; interesting or problematic race/gender representation?
Citizen journalism is more prevalent in the BBC.co.uk article about Tsvangirai's injuries and trip to Botswana in comparison to Cbc.ca's article about the same matter: the website displays pictures of an injured Tsvangirai, his toppled car and other issues Zimbabwe has faced in the past. On the subject of globalization, the issue revolves around the post-colonial Zimbabwe and two conflicting governments; this is further exemplified by BBC.co.uk's story of Tsvangirai fleeing to Botswana, but also reported equally by Cbc.ca (despite their attempt to paint Mugabe as a caring figure by visiting Tsvangirai in the hospital). Race representation may be affected by the article in presenting the two conflicting views of a post-colonial African country; there is no one definable way to represent all Zimbabweans.
The war image of the political crimes in Zimbabwe is being filtered out - not sure for what reason - but it isn't reaching the two main networks being compared in this entry, which shocks me; the images of starving citizens work most effectively against political corruption, yet the major outlets have shown little outside of the faces of Tsvangirai and Mugabe.
3.What did you learn from reading / listening to news from a venue you don’t usually go to? What do YOU have to say about news?
I usually open my Firefox internet browser with a Cbc.ca news feed attached to the home page - it wasn't until I really took a critical look at the website in comparison to www.bbc.co.uk, a larger and wider-distributed public broadcaster, that I saw what Cbc.ca was missing. The BBC's perspective seemed a bit more international with regards to Tsvangirai's whereabouts in comparison to Cbc.ca's lack of foreign information. However, in defence of the CBC, I am accessing this story at an early time during an off-period for news delivery (outside of rush hour, dinner hour news time slot, etc).
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)