One story, two tales
Following up on our last section in-class activity, posted below is a document containing the text of both the Wall Street Journal story and the New York Times story about the bank hacking. This is an excellent example of framing — neither story lies, but each definitely shows a particular bias and tells a different story for a different readership.
Participation! In the comments here, add your deductions from in-class discussion groups about what makes these stories different and — specifically — how (show the evidence!).
Pui Ting Chow (Angel)
11/23/2014 03:53:28 pm
Media framing is used in both of the two news about JP Morgan. The New York Times uses extreme sentences such as "consumer
12/12/2014 05:04:37 am
Each of these stories had a special interest in using the same form of research yet delivering it in different ways. This is important in our culture because almost all policies, political races, advertisements and newspaper articles use this to trigger different emotions about the exact same thing. Instead of giving you statistics they back them up with other valid points that can either make it seem like the worst thing in the world or something that is not worth second guessing yourself. The Wall Street Journal covered the story and explained that none of the information gathered was sufficient enough to hack any of their personal accounts and they said that the bank had stated “their money was safe” and nothing “unusual” had happened. In the opposite article written by the New York Times, they wanted to warn bank customers that the “cyber attack had left Chase banking compromised.” Just those words alone left me in anxiety as my banking is through Chase as well. They went on to mention other instances in which identity and credit cards were stolen, such as Target and Home Depot. This makes the customer very uneasy and is a way to promote ending banking accounts with chase. I see this relative in today’s news because advertising and news articles are word games that play into our emotions. We just watched a video in class that showed a heart-wrenching scene in which a group of African Americans wanted to gather peacefully and talk about the incident involving an unarmed black man and police officer that killed him. By showing and using specific wording to illustrate their beliefs they are using PR to help gain support to those who are watching.
12/14/2014 07:12:28 am
Although these two articles are reporting the same incident, the language choice and chronological order of details make it feel like these two events are completely unrelated. We see the difference in word choice from the very beginning as the New York Times uses very strong words such as "cyberattack" and "intrusion" whereas the Wall Street Journal's language choice is much less fear driven, using words to explain the incident like "affected" and "disclosed breaches." The New York Times also uses quotes of people who hold very high security jobs, furtherly instilling fear in the reader.
12/16/2014 04:31:50 pm
While both new articles discuss the same event, they present two very different stories simply by the way the event is portrayed. The Wall Street Journal provides a story that seems less alarming than the one the New York Times paints. The Wall Street Journal chooses words such as "affected" while the New York Times uses words such as "intrusion," "scrambled," and "skittish." These last few words give off negative connotations that invoke a sense of urgency and unsettledness. In addition to simple differences in word choice, the Wall Street Journal also provides details about all that the bank has done in response to the breach and includes methods the bank is taking to ensure more security in the future. The New York Times seems to dwell more on the harm caused by the breach and less on what is being done to make sure this never happens again. This shifted focus stems partly from what each respective newspaper is trying to portray to their audiences. As a paper that appeals more to those who actually invest in the trade market, the Wall Street Journal attempts to lessen the blow of the breach so as not to alarm its readers who may feel more personally affected by the incident.
Janice K Yu
12/16/2014 06:25:50 pm
Although the topics of both articles are the same, there are many different aspects to each. The Wall Street Journal frames J.P. Morgan in a way that makes their cyber breach seem like a small misunderstanding, whereas the New York Times bashes on J.P. Morgan, saying how accounts have been compromised and basically creating worry among readers. For example, The WSJ article states that the bank said hackers were unable to obtain information on accounts and that customer money is safe. The NYT however, states that JP Morgan banks have more sensitive data in their systems that goes beyond credit card information, and do not go on to say that none of that information has been breached until later on in the article. WSJ also states that JP Morgan has been working closely with the FBI to determine the scope of cyberattacks that have been happening, whereas NYT continues to talk about how hackers were drilling deep into computer systems to access private information. WSJ article talks in a more calm, and collected tone to ease the situation and the NYT keeps bashing on JP Morgan by talking about how severe the situation is, and basically causing panic. With media framing obviously present, we can see that the WSJ is trying to help JP Morgan save humiliation and skepticism in customers, whereas the NYT is making JP Morgan look really untrustworthy and sketchy.
Leave a Reply.