“人道主义灾难”还是“解放斗争”:《独立报》和《纽约时报》对2016年和2017年阿勒颇和拉卡军事行动报道的比较分析

IF 1.5 3区 文学 Q2 COMMUNICATION Media International Australia Pub Date : 2023-06-07 DOI:10.1177/1329878x231179283
A. Rabea
{"title":"“人道主义灾难”还是“解放斗争”:《独立报》和《纽约时报》对2016年和2017年阿勒颇和拉卡军事行动报道的比较分析","authors":"A. Rabea","doi":"10.1177/1329878x231179283","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article explores the coverage by The Independent and The New York Times of the 2016 and the 2017 military operations in Aleppo and Al-Raqqa. It highlights the uneven reporting on the humanitarian crisis in the two cities. The analysis shows that the similarities in the coverage of the two newspapers were greater than the differences. The New York Times and The Independent (to a lesser extent) espoused a pro-US narrative of the Syrian conflict by framing Aleppo as a humanitarian ‘catastrophe’ and Al-Raqqa as a ‘liberation’ struggle. Biases were constructed out of several elements including (1) the dominance of US sources and selective use of UN and NGO sources; (2) the use of visual content quantitatively and qualitatively; (3) the use of graphic and emotive terms; (4) focus on the humanitarian crisis in Aleppo and the military operations in Al-Raqqa.","PeriodicalId":46880,"journal":{"name":"Media International Australia","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A ‘Humanitarian Disaster’ or a ‘Liberation Struggle’: A comparative analysis of the coverages of The Independent and The New York Times of the 2016 and the 2017 military operations in Aleppo and Al-Raqqa\",\"authors\":\"A. Rabea\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/1329878x231179283\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This article explores the coverage by The Independent and The New York Times of the 2016 and the 2017 military operations in Aleppo and Al-Raqqa. It highlights the uneven reporting on the humanitarian crisis in the two cities. The analysis shows that the similarities in the coverage of the two newspapers were greater than the differences. The New York Times and The Independent (to a lesser extent) espoused a pro-US narrative of the Syrian conflict by framing Aleppo as a humanitarian ‘catastrophe’ and Al-Raqqa as a ‘liberation’ struggle. Biases were constructed out of several elements including (1) the dominance of US sources and selective use of UN and NGO sources; (2) the use of visual content quantitatively and qualitatively; (3) the use of graphic and emotive terms; (4) focus on the humanitarian crisis in Aleppo and the military operations in Al-Raqqa.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46880,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Media International Australia\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-06-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Media International Australia\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/1329878x231179283\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"文学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"COMMUNICATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Media International Australia","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1329878x231179283","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"COMMUNICATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文探讨了《独立报》和《纽约时报》对2016年和2017年阿勒颇和拉卡军事行动的报道。这凸显了对这两个城市人道主义危机的报道参差不齐。分析表明,两份报纸在报道上的相似之处大于差异。《纽约时报》和《独立报》(在较小程度上)支持对叙利亚冲突的亲美叙事,将阿勒颇描述为人道主义的“灾难”,将拉卡描述为一场“解放”斗争。偏见是由以下几个因素构成的:(1)美国来源的主导地位和对联合国和非政府组织来源的选择性使用;(2)定量和定性地使用视觉内容;(3)使用图形和情感术语;(4)关注阿勒颇的人道主义危机和拉卡的军事行动。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
A ‘Humanitarian Disaster’ or a ‘Liberation Struggle’: A comparative analysis of the coverages of The Independent and The New York Times of the 2016 and the 2017 military operations in Aleppo and Al-Raqqa
This article explores the coverage by The Independent and The New York Times of the 2016 and the 2017 military operations in Aleppo and Al-Raqqa. It highlights the uneven reporting on the humanitarian crisis in the two cities. The analysis shows that the similarities in the coverage of the two newspapers were greater than the differences. The New York Times and The Independent (to a lesser extent) espoused a pro-US narrative of the Syrian conflict by framing Aleppo as a humanitarian ‘catastrophe’ and Al-Raqqa as a ‘liberation’ struggle. Biases were constructed out of several elements including (1) the dominance of US sources and selective use of UN and NGO sources; (2) the use of visual content quantitatively and qualitatively; (3) the use of graphic and emotive terms; (4) focus on the humanitarian crisis in Aleppo and the military operations in Al-Raqqa.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.10
自引率
4.20%
发文量
66
期刊最新文献
What audiences do with news: a broader definition of news consumption Wellness communities and vaccine hesitancy Making public or quiet listening? Media logics and public inquiries into the abuse of children Exploring a post-truth referendum: Australia's Voice to Parliament and the management of attention on social media Palaeo podcasting: a practice-led extended-mixed methods case study
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1