The stack of articles our group received on Tuesday consisted mainly of the the brutality of torture, mainly done by a Lt. John Burge. Lt. John Burge had been charged with lying about not torturing his "criminals" and was sentenced to 4 1/2 years in prison even though the sentence was said to could have been up to 45 years in prison. Although throughout the articles there appeared to be differences in the way they explained, whether it was in alot of details or not, all the articles did consist of the main topic: Lt. John Burge. Yes, this seems obscure since obviously he was the main purpose behind these articles, but this also shows proof of the lack of consistancy between the articles as well. Every article excelled at making Lt. John Burge look like the bad guy, and beyond all means I am not defending him, but these "criminals" must have done something as well to be in these shoes.
Each article's "attempt at faming" was based on associating Lt. Burge with racism towards African Americans and horrific tortures. For example, in one new station Mr. Burge sentenced a man to 100 years in prison while the prisoner claimed to have been wrongly accused and confessed because he was tortured and of course, as stated, he was African American. This is not the only cause to follow that claims to have been wrongly accused of their crimes and as a result, Lt. Burge was sentenced for the lying; however, strangely, not for the torturing.
The "truth" is hard to identify within these articles. While some claimed that Mr. Burge discriminated against, tortured, and locked up only African Americans, some articles insisted it to had been both African Americans and Latinos. News Stations also differed in dialect throughout each article. Stations like Fox News and The New York Times focused on the trials while other articles aimed at getting information such as who was tortured or what Lt. Burge did. These frames that these articles targeted all made sense from their own political or social standpoint. The reason why I claim this is because every single station tried to frame the same person, but through different viewpoints to get to the point. An example from a social standpoint was from a news article of a page long that consistently viewed Burge as a rascist through just writings that repeatedly stated "only African Americans" while others, from a political standpoint, talked concerning Mayor Dailey and the trials in relation to Burges. Insufficient evidence, in my belief, was given for and agaisnt Burge (even though I do agree that he should go jail for torturing others). In other words, I am not satisfied with each news station because every article did not focus and did not prove well enough what was supposed to be done. Overall, every new station took advantage of their articles and made it in the way they wanted the readers to see it; by structuring the story to their specific needs, news stations got what they wanted out of the stories. Through their methods, whether it was the repitition of words or by just mentioning the message they wanted to send out (and not the other half of the story), these articles created the frame.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI like the title of this blog, but to answer that in my own words, I don't think there is an actual "truth". We have our own ideals, thoughts, and beliefs. Basically, we have our own truths. What I've learned may be true to me and complete opposite of how others learned it and how they see it as the truth. We structure our own beliefs and thoughts around a subject to make it true to ourselves or for self-gain. Like you mentioned, these news stations create certain frames for their own purposes and advantages. But sadly they need to do this to engage a certain and more broad audience.
ReplyDelete