Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
different slants on headlines........
Topic Started: Sep 23 2003, 04:35 PM (114 Views)
nztrekkie
Lieutenant
A comparison of major paper headlines of the UN speeches is interesting -

Washington Times : "Bush Says Iraq Transition Won't Be Rushed"

BBC : "Bush urges unity on Iraq"

both quite neutral or positive images I would proffer.

but the NZ national paper says -

NZ Herald : "Bush rebuked for Iraq invasion", followed by -

"Analysts pick apart Bush UN speech"
"Iraqis sceptical Bush speech means brighter future"

this is a decidedly negative slant - who's correct ?


Seems that just like individuals that we all are, newspaper reporters also write it as they see it.

All just goes to show how important it is to decide issues for ourselves doesn't it ?
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Swidden
Member Avatar
Adm. Gadfly-at-large; Provisional wRench-fly at large
They both are correct to some degree from what you have printed. Just different takes on what people heard and what they looked for in the speech.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
« Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Tweet
comments powered by Disqus