I would like to compare two articles published in The New York Times in the past two weeks. Both articles focus on the Russo-American relations and reflect on their dynamic over the past several years, specifically in view of the current political situation in Syria. The first one by Peter Baker is entitled “U.S. Feels Chill in its Relations with Russians. The Failure of ‘Reset”. It appeared on Tuesday, September 3, 2013. The second one, published on Wednesday, September 11, 2013, by Steven Lee Myers, is called “As Obama Pauses Action, Putin Takes Center Stage. For Russian, Series of Goals Achieved”.
The drama over the U.S./Russia/Syria triangle has been widely covered by the New York Times in the past month, with multiple articles on the subject appearing in every issue of the newspaper. In my view, these articles can be used as primary sources in the study of reflective political metadiscourse in contemporary American liberal media. Indeed, I find it curious how the particular articles I chose are meant to reflect the dramatic change in the political situation that occurred over the course of just one week (September 3 to September 11, 2013), yet the language surrounding Russia (which, it appears safe to say, is very much equated with its president), stays very consistent.
The first article narrates the history of the “failed” “reset” chapter in the Russo-American relations and states that “The goal now is to keep it from sliding much further”. However, while the second article presents evidence of “just how much the circumstances have changed in such a short time”, the language patterns used to describe Russia seem to resist documenting that change as change. In the first article, Russia is referred to as a “longtime adversary”. Mr. Putin’s actions are described using the words “alpha-male”, “harangue”, “lost power, lost glory”, Mr. Obama is quoted describing Mr. Putin as “the bored kid the back of the classroom”, and the author lists Mr. Putin’s faux pas that have led to his being seen in the West as a “calloused, out-of-touch modern-day czar”. In the second article, Mr. Putin’s “achievements” are all described against the backdrop of “control over most media”, “strained” relations with Europe, “palpable hostility” and “anti-American sentiment”, “exploiting the divisions that appeared between the United States and its allies”. Hey, they're not going to bomb Syria after all, and Mr. Putin, he's evil of course, but, well, he sort of helped, isn't that nice of him? Apparently, no. One would think this (seeming) duality is in keeping with the liberal nature of the publication, yet I would argue that The New York Times should be more conscious of just how much they exploit the “bad guys vs. good guys” way of presenting the situation, rarely, if ever, surpassing it.
I have never been fond of following politics, because I believe that it induces excessive production of bile acids and is generally bad for one’s health, and following the New York Times more closely now that I live in the U.S. leaves me wondering if the writers should read “American Quarterly” every now and again. (“And start seeing everyone as a “bad guy” instead?” would be a problematizing rising intonation follow-up question.)
The drama over the U.S./Russia/Syria triangle has been widely covered by the New York Times in the past month, with multiple articles on the subject appearing in every issue of the newspaper. In my view, these articles can be used as primary sources in the study of reflective political metadiscourse in contemporary American liberal media. Indeed, I find it curious how the particular articles I chose are meant to reflect the dramatic change in the political situation that occurred over the course of just one week (September 3 to September 11, 2013), yet the language surrounding Russia (which, it appears safe to say, is very much equated with its president), stays very consistent.
The first article narrates the history of the “failed” “reset” chapter in the Russo-American relations and states that “The goal now is to keep it from sliding much further”. However, while the second article presents evidence of “just how much the circumstances have changed in such a short time”, the language patterns used to describe Russia seem to resist documenting that change as change. In the first article, Russia is referred to as a “longtime adversary”. Mr. Putin’s actions are described using the words “alpha-male”, “harangue”, “lost power, lost glory”, Mr. Obama is quoted describing Mr. Putin as “the bored kid the back of the classroom”, and the author lists Mr. Putin’s faux pas that have led to his being seen in the West as a “calloused, out-of-touch modern-day czar”. In the second article, Mr. Putin’s “achievements” are all described against the backdrop of “control over most media”, “strained” relations with Europe, “palpable hostility” and “anti-American sentiment”, “exploiting the divisions that appeared between the United States and its allies”. Hey, they're not going to bomb Syria after all, and Mr. Putin, he's evil of course, but, well, he sort of helped, isn't that nice of him? Apparently, no. One would think this (seeming) duality is in keeping with the liberal nature of the publication, yet I would argue that The New York Times should be more conscious of just how much they exploit the “bad guys vs. good guys” way of presenting the situation, rarely, if ever, surpassing it.
I have never been fond of following politics, because I believe that it induces excessive production of bile acids and is generally bad for one’s health, and following the New York Times more closely now that I live in the U.S. leaves me wondering if the writers should read “American Quarterly” every now and again. (“And start seeing everyone as a “bad guy” instead?” would be a problematizing rising intonation follow-up question.)
No comments:
Post a Comment