Differences Between the New York Times & Newsday

This article states the differences in journalistic techniques between the New York Times and Newsday. The New York Times is one of the most prestigious newspapers in the world and while Newsday has its own followers, it has not reached the prominence of the New York Times.

On January 19^th, 2005, 26 Iraqi's were killed in five different bomb attacks. Among the 26 of them were members of Iraqi's fledgling security team. The first blast occurred in front of the Australian Embassy and wounded two Australian soldiers. The next attack occurred near an Iraqi police station in central Baghdad. In this incident nine people were killed. That same blast also blew out the windows of two nearby hospitals although no one was injured there. Soon there after, car bombs exploded outside an Iraqi military base and near Baghdad International Airport. Five people were killed in those explosions. The final bombing of the day occurred near a Baghdad bank killing at least one person.

Both articles focus on an attack by insurgents that killed Iraqi's. That is primarily where the similarities end. The two articles are from Newsday and The New York Times, and the differences start from the titles. The Newsday titles reads "No sign of letup in Iraq attacks," while The New York Times headline reads "5 bomb attacks kill 26 as vote by Iraqis nears." The style of the titles is vastly different with Newsday using a small type face, with bold and big letters while The New York Times uses all capital letters in a very compact format. The sub-headlines also show the differences between the two newspapers. Newsday's sub-headline is "Rash of bombings orchestrated to derail the coming elections claims 26 lives in Baghdad, officials say." The New York Times' sub-headline is "Allawi says he will soon offer plan for eventual withdrawal by U.S."

The New York Times' article contains one picture while Newsday's article provides three pictures. The New York Times' picture caption is "A suicide bomber attacked a Baghdad bank yesterday as policemen lined up for their pay. A national guard member carried his remains." The picture shows an Iraqi national guard member carrying out the remains of an Iraqi policemen in a small plastic bag while other Iraqi's watch. The first Newsday image shows the picture of a young African American solider from the Bronx who was killed in combat. The solider, Nathaniel Swindell, looks like he is no more then twenty years old and he looks like any other young man. The next image shows a U.S. solider in a remembrance for Nathaniel Swindell. The final picture shows U.S. forces trying to secure the area where a bomb rocked the Australian Embassy. All of these images are meant to show the emotional impact found in the war and not really the actual world that our troops are living in. The New York Times on the other hand tries to be a more serious paper and does not want the emotional issues to be that easily noticed. Their picture is more symbolic of the greater picture then each individual person in Iraq. The New York Times shows the greater issue that the Iraqi security service is so focused on their individual pay more so then the greater good of the Iraqi people which will cause democracy in Iraq to most assuredly fail.

The New York Times article has an actual author while Newsday's article is composed of many combined new services. Since The New York Times is one of the most widely read papers it is understandable that they would have more staff writers as opposed to Newsday which is a local paper. Many smaller papers and even the large papers use new services such as Reuters and the Associated Press. This creates bias as the stories we read may not have even been written by someone on the ground. It also makes the news extremely generic as it is all coming from the same source with the same perspective. The New York Times has actual people on the ground collecting the information in real time as opposed to staying in the United States.

The articles differ in the fact that Newsday primarily focuses on the attack while The New York Times focuses more on a timetable for American troops to leave Iraq. Newsday gives a clear and in detail report of the incident. While The New York Times talks in more detail about a plan by interim prime minister Ayad Allawi that would accelerate the American troop withdrawal. This is another difference between global papers and local papers.

Another noticeable difference is in the word usage. The New York Times repeatedly uses the term insurgents. It is even the first word in the article. In the Newsday article the term insurgent is not even used once. The New York Times does not mention Jordanian militant Abu Musab al-Zarqawi or the terror group he leads in Iraq, Al Qaida. The Newsday mentions him and his terrorist group in the third paragraph.

The general idea in the Newsday article is that more Iraqi's have been killed for no reason, just to put pressure on the American and Iraqi leaders. In The New York Times the main underlying idea is that America should never have gotten involved at all and that Prime Minister Ayad Allawi should propose more ideas to expedite American troops from being in the region. The New York Times even uses quotes from Dr. Allawi to try to explain this point, "this in turn will accelerate the drawdown and gradual withdrawal of the multinational forces in Iraq."

Both articles make heavy reference to the upcoming elections. Both papers heavily blame the increase in attacks on Iraqi's to the January 30th election. The New York Times seems almost cynical that the Iraq forces will be able to protect the 5,500 polling places in Iraq. The Newsday mentions that it will be an important test for the Iraqi's. Both sources realize the importance of the upcoming events. The New York Times however makes it as a test for when our troops will be able to come home. The New York Times is clearly an antiwar paper as they had numerous articles before the decision was made to go to war that were against it.

The details of the attack are pretty much the same in both accounts as it is hard to contort the basic facts into the position in which you want them. I feel as though both articles sum up the incident well. It seems as though it will be difficult for the U.S. and Iraqi troops to contain all the insurgents that are determined for an undemocratic Iraqi. Both articles show their biases with The New York Times being slanted more in the left while Newsday is a little bit more towards the right. The news that you read about or hear about might not even be true. Since the average person hasn't been to Iraq there is no reference if it has really occurred or it is just made up by the media and the government.