I
found that both newspapers are conveniently alike. It wasn't like the
time I was looking through the Polytechnique website to answer some
questions and I found it to be very different to the MIT website.
Basically, The New York Times and Le Monde have the same divisions in
their main pages, which make it easy to navigate through the sites.
The
sections of the two newspapers seemed to be very similar. Both focused
on the news with subsections that included features like art and
culture and the classified sections. The headlines, however, were very
different. While the French headlines in Le Monde focused on relevant
international events like the elections in Honduras in addition to
policy debates about drugs and violence in France, the American
headlines focused on Sadam Huseein, George Bush and illegal
immigration, and companies like Merck facing economic problems and job
cuts.
On
the website of le Monde, I found two interesting subcategories
"Savoirs" and "Examens 2006" under "Pratique." "Savoirs" is a guide
page to conferences on various scientific, social and artistic
subjects. "Examens 2006" is a collection of various articles and seems
to have to do with the "bac". (Maybe one needs some knowledge on
important current events to do well in the "bac"?)
I
agree with the above posts. While the two different newspaper are
divided into similar sections, the headlines are very different. Le
monde focuses more on interanational issues as well as French domestic
issues. It also has more focus on francophone countries. Whereas, NYT
focuses more on US news with a little bit of international news.
It
is true that I do not read a lot of American newspapers. I usually skim
The Tech and whatever I can find in the Student Center. However, I did
not once see any reference to the aleged CIA prisons in Europe. On the
other hand, I have read plenty of such articles in Romanian online
newspapers (mainly because Romanian was accued by the EU to have hosted
such a prison) and there is such an article in "Le Monde". I find it
strange American newspapers do not mention it. Are they censored or do
they just don't care? It could also be the case that I haven't been
paying too much attention ...
I
actually think that the two papers are very different. For instance,
the headlines of the NYTs use very active and colorful language like
referring to levies as a piece of pie and the verbs "kidnapping"
"slaying" and "fights." The headlines of le Monde are much less
editorialized. They simply state that deVillepin is going to "harden"
the government's stance on immigration. Also, the French paper seems
more concerned with international news (at least on the front page)
than the American paper. As far as the subdivisions, I found it
interesting that "societe" comes before "entreprise" in le Monde,
whereas it's not even in the "news" section for the New York Times (but
sports are...).
I
think the 2 newspapers are divided up similarly. However, it seems like
the French focus on international news more than the Americans. For
example, under international news there is an article about the US. I
think it would be more appropriate if it was under national news. Also,
the only common story that is on the front page is related to Iraq.
Au
risque de paraître beaucoup plus futile, j'aimerai dire un mot sur la
comparaison de deux journaux qui sont assez différents et qui pourtant
portent le même nom : Cosmopolitan. Si l'on compare les versions
américaines et françaises, on voit tout de suite la grande différence
de contenu qu'il y a entre les deux ( peut être d'ailleurs que c'est
plus flagrant dans ce type de journaux, il faudrait étudier la question
!)
La différence est telle que je peux facilement affirmer
pouvoir lire la version française en m'amusant alors que je suis
parfois choquée par la version américaine. Soyons honnête, celle-ci est
beaucoup plus trash... Sans parler de la forme, c'est au contenu du
journal que je m'attaquerai plus précisément.
En France, la majorité des articles sont destinés à décrire
les moyens multiples que l'on peut trouver pour être une femme libérée
et équilibrée : Sourire, être optimiste, se réserver des moments de
détente, etc... Enfin, bref une tonne de conseils psychologiques
(parfois un peu simplets, j'avoue) pour voir la vie du bon côté et pour
en profiter au maximum...
Dans la version américaine, on trouve une prolifération de
conseils sexuels : comment le rendre heureux, comment se donner du
plaisir, quelles sont les meilleures positions : bref, un vrai guide
sur comment avoir une vie sexuelle épanouie. Je ne dis pas qu'une telle
rubrique n'est pas présente dans la version française, mais elle est
vraiment insignifiante par rapport à la version américaine...
Ce qui m'amène, vous vous en doutez, à me poser de sérieuses
questions sur la différence de nos besoins... Ou alors c'est que la
presse américaine a besoin de choquer pour vendre... Ou encore
s'agit-il d'une différence de conception de la notion de "politiquement
correct"... La question mérite peut-être d'être creusée...
C'est
raisonnable de voir qu'il y a peu de différence au niveau de division.
Mais le contenu de sujet me étonne un peu. Le NYtimes contient très peu
des informations sur l'Europe. Et la terrorisme est leur priorité. Une
autre chose que j'ai remarqué est la poids mise en partis politiques.Le
Monde a mis beaucoup plus d'accent sur les nouvelles des partis
politiques que le NYtimes.
I
agree with Gwen. I feel like the French headlines are just summaries of
the stories--they are not attention-getters. However, the American
headlines are catchy. Certain words are placed next to each other to
create emotion. Once you feel angry or sad or disgusted, you want to
read more. For instance "safety" and "$32 billion" makes one angry that
the government seems to spend all of its money in the name of safety,
"Nigeria" and "new sordid" makes one feel sorry for Nigerians because
they seem to always get stuck with the short end of the stick, and
"Iraqi military" and "kidnappings and slayings" makes one angry at the
military who is supposed to be keeping peace, not destroying it. I
think that the photos drive this home. I looked at some of the photos
on Le Monde's website and found them really boring...really not
something that made me want to read the article. The pictures on the
NYT's site, however, made me interested in the story before I began to
read it. Do you (French students) find that the headlines and pictures
of the NYT are obnoxious or are they catching for you too?
With respect to the different categories, I thought it was
cool that le Monde had forums, blogs, and polls on its website and that
the NYT did not. Does this mean that French people are more involved in
the news than Americans? Or do Americans just talk about the news at
work or at home and the French interact with news on websites? Also, I
thought that it was interesting to note that there weren't any
obituaries or games in le Monde. I've never understood why Americans
read obituaries, so I can't really comment on that, but crossword
puzzles are fun! Would most French people not play games if there were
some?
While
I agree that the front page of the New York Times discusses less
international news than that of Le Monde, I think it is partially a
product of the audience. Americans who are just skimming the front page
to see what's going on are probably more concerned with National
issues. However, for those readers who would like to know about the
current international events, there is a separate section of the
newspaper dedicated to International news.
Rebecca, I found your comparison of the Cosmopolitan magazines
interesting. It's true that in America, there are a lot of semi-trashy
women's magazines which talk about sex more than they do
self-empowerment and general health. I think this is also a product of
the audience, since it seems that many American readers are just
looking for a fast fix. If you see an American Cosmo , you'll notice
that in addtion to sex, there are often tips on how to quickly lose
weight without too much exertion. The concept is a bit silly, but with
the short attention-span of many Americans, maybe its fitting.
Like
Rachel, I too was surprised with all the blogs and forums I found in Le
Monde. The one section that I thought was interesting was the "Examens
2006". I think Kyungmin mentioned this already, but I'm not really sure
what it is. I think it has to do with the bac, but it seemed to be some
kind of information source that waters down specific events in history.
It's almost like a summary report of certain events that students may
need to know in order to excell in the bac. The first article deals
with the functionality of the German Republic in the 60's.
I think it's kind of cool that a newspaper does this. It's
also kind of scary that students have to know such detailed information
about the German government. If world government knowledge was a
requirement for American tests like the SATs, I think Americans would
get lower scores. (I know I would!)
I know the American news magazine 'U.S. News and World Report'
does rankings of schools, and averages of SAT scores for students
admitted to those schools. Does Le Monde do something similar with the
Bac scores for universities and "grandes ecoles"? Did I miss it
somewhere?
I
agree with everyone for the most part about Le Monde having more of an
international focus that the NY Times. I thought it was interesting
though, that both papers had a regional focus. For instance, in the
NYTimes there was a big artcle about the no confidence vote in Canada.
Le Monde had an article about the President of Algeria going to Paris
for a medical examination.
Rebecca/Maggie, I think that the Cosmopolitan discussion is
interesting and I would like to add some input. While I do find most US
women's magazines very trashy, I think that they serve a purpose for
their readers. From what I have heard the French are much more open
about sexuality compared to Americans, especially Americans in certain
geographic regions. For readers, Cosmo might be their sole source of
sexual education/information. It is the one place that they can go to
to learn about sex because discussing it would be too taboo. Perhaps if
there were more open, frank discussions about sexuality, American women
could focus on more uplifting things like empowerment and their
careers.
I
agree with Maggie, Rachel, and Gwen. I think that in general Americans
are more in a hurry and have the 'go go go' attitude and so in order
for them to read an article, the titles have to be catchy. If the
titles were too descriptive that's all people would read. I also think
that the majority of Americans don't concern themselves much with
things outside their little world. In the grand scheme of things their
priorities are with their own life and only when there is a break in
action will they really sit down and read about what's going on outside
their little world.
I
compared an article in the New York Times on the response of the
American government to the question of alleged secret prisons of CIA in
Eastern Europe with an article in le Monde on the same subject. The
title of the NYT article is "U. S. to Respond to Inquiries Over
Detentions in Europe" and the title of le Monde article is "Washington
s'expliquera sur la CIA en Europe." There is not much difference in the
report of the main statements by the U. S. government, but there are
differences in other parts. The most remarkable difference is that the
NYT article described in much more detail the reaction of the Europeans
and the anger that the case generated in some European officials, while
the anger is not even mentioned in le Monde article. Another
interesting difference is that only the NYT article mentions the
statement by the spokesman of the Department of State that confronting
terrorism is "a shared responsibility of all countries." (perhaps a
sort of excuse by the U. S. government?)
I've seen a French Cosmopolitian and I think it is much more
similiar to an American fashion magazine called W, although in recent
years this magazine has become more and more celebrity- and
sex-obsessed. There are a huge number of American magazines devoted to
sex tips, celebrity watching, and clothes buying. They are extremely
popular with women and female teenagers. Are there many of this type of
magazine in France as well?
I
compared the two articles (in the international secion of the NYTs and
LeMonde) about the new party formed by Ariel Sharon in Israel, which
has recently been joined by Shimon Peres, who left his own party as
well. The American version uses many quiotes from the two politicians,
and is very concerned with the upcoming elections and how many votes
Peres will bring with him to the new party, and only briefly mentions
the party's platform. Perhaps this is an artifact of the
election-obsessed (or at least competition-obsessed) american public,
or perhaps our more individualistic outlook.
The French version, on the other hand, goes into much more
detail about the people involved in the new party and about it's
platform. It only mentions the elections in the last paragraph. It also
mentions first that Peres is a Nobel laureate, whereas the American
version buries that somewhere in the middle. The writing styles are
also very different- the French paragraphs are generally longer and
more complex. I found it much more informative- more facts and less
opinion.
Have any French students compared these articles? What do you
think of the American version?... try reading it before the french
version and let me know your impressions.
I
also compared the two articles about Peres and Sharon. I found that the
French article actually gave some detail for the plan to create a new
Palestinian country and to get rid of the terrorists. The American
version did not get into the details of the plan.
Both articles mentioned that Peres is a Nobel laureate, but the American version gave a little more on Peres' history.
Both articles mentioned the polls, but the American version
actually gave numbers including margin of error. Maybe this shows that
Americans don't believe the results of polls as easily as the French.
I
read two articles that talked about Bush's speech to the naval academy
about the war in Iraq. I actually found the opposite conclusion to
Gwen. I found that the French article ("Aucun calendrier de retrait des
troupes pour Bush mais la recherche de la 'victoire complete' en Irak")
had many more quotations from politicians as well as from the 35-page
paper that the White House released. In fact, almost the entire article
was quotations! At first, I thought, "Wow! This is really more
straight-forward than the American version." However, the quotations
that the French journalist picked are very different from the ones the
American journalist picked. One of the first things one reads in the
French version is that Bush said, "'Je pense qu'ils ont tort.'" Then,
he goes on to report that Bush said, "'tant que je serai votre
commandant en chef.'" These isolated quotations can be taken very
negatively, especially if taken with the title. Thus, I think the
French journalist does a good job of hiding his opinion in
fact--picking only the quotations that support his view--not
necessarily of reporting the entire story. He leaves out Bush's reason
for not pulling out of Iraq and talks nothing of the political
consequences of the decision, as the American report ("Gaining control
in Iraq and regaining support at home") does.
I also noticed that the NYT has a picture of the Naval Academy
students cheering as well as a close up of President Bush smiling. In
comparision, Le Monde had a similar picture to the one of Bush in the
NYT but farther away...far enough away that one can read the banner in
the background, which reads VICTORY...very subtle, but very effective.
I guess I thought that the French media was less biased than
the American media, more prone to reporting the facts and not the
story. What do you guys think?
Also, a quick question: I noticed that in the part of the
French article that was most negative toward President Bush, the French
journalist called Bush "M. Bush." In English, we would never call the
President "Mr. Bush." "Mr. President" is acceptable, but not just Mr.
Bush. Is this a form of disrespect or is this okay in French. Would you
say M. Chirac?
I
also read the articles about Shimon Peres joining Ariel Sharon new
political party. To generalize the two articles, the one by the NY
Times was more of a biography of Peres, while the article by Le Monde
was more of a commentary on the political philosophy of the new party,
Kadima. I found the French article to be much more insightful. It
discussed some reasons for Peres to change parties (he was beaten in
the Nov. 9 election by Amir Peretz). The article also speculated that
Kadima might rejoin with the labor party after the election. As noted
before, the NY Times articled discussed the statistics of the election
(how legislative seats will change) within the text of the article. The
article in Le Monde had had a special text box on the side to address
this.
Like
most of the other students, I found that it seems like the French and
the Americans have two different styles when it comes to reporting
news. The New York Times tries to draw one in with its big, flashy
headlines that attract ones attention, but I feel don't offer that much
information. On the other hand, the headlines in Le Monde are often
supplemented with a small summary of the following story which I feel
is a better way in which to transmit the story to the reader because it
doesn't sacrifice any of the facts in an attempt to try to interest you
to read it. I feel that some of the headlines in the New York Times do
this and as a result, the information is ambigious at times.
Also, in response to a comment that stated that Le Monde puts
more emphasis on party politics than does the New York Times, I have to
say that while this may be the case in this instance, I don't think
it's the general rule. The New York Times may leave out stories about
party politics because it is such a diversified paper trying to attract
the interests of millions of different people. However, I feel that if
you go to any local newspapers or even other national papers like the
USA Today, there will definitely be more emphasis placed on party
politics.
I
looked at (like some other people, though later articles I think) the
CIA detainees being held abroad. The titles were "Rights Group Lists 26
It Says U.S. Is Holding in Secret Abroad" and "Plus de 300 vols de la
CIA vers l'Europe auraient eu lieu depuis 2001" and the links are
The most striking difference I found was that the NYT version
focused on the human rights problems involved with holding these
prisoners, while the le Monde version focused on the European outrage
over the possibility that these prisoners were being held in their
country. This difference is interesting, perhaps, because it displays
the conflict evident in such perennial displays as anti-war protests:
the notion of heralding "peace" as infinitely greater than "war" in all
situations because with "peace," "no one is dying." The problem is that
people might be dying, but "it's somewhere else" and "who cares about
that place because it's far away." A war hawk might herald "ideals"
instead and say that war will allow us to reach a better status quo.
Obviously I have no answers to these questions besides stating
that one cannot be isolated in today's world, though the connections
which prevent that isolation are very, very, very complex and difficult
to manipulate.
I
read an article on the alleged CIA secret prisons in Europe. I found
that the article in the New York Times was more subjective and
interested in the emotions and reactions of the European governments.
It speculated on the possible ramifications of this discovery and of
possible reasons for why the US would have secret prisons, such as to
torture prisoners in countries where it wasn't illegal. On the other
hand, the French article focused much more heavily on the facts, such
as the number of flights documented. This was part of the title of the
French article, but didn't appear until the last paragraph of the
American article. The French article didn't speculate much on the
consequences and it was much shorter than the American article.
The NYT article contains a lot of statistics about the number of
victimes in Iraque. It shows that the situation in Iraque is a lot
better than it used to be one year ago, but it is still from being
perfect (see the 3 recent attacks that caused over 30 deaths each).
The article from "Le Monde" does not really discuss the
situation in Iraque. It contains a lot of quotes of President Bush's.
However, I think that the main intent of the citations is to ridicule
Bush. Furthermore, President Bush is accused of not setting a calendar
for retreating the troops from Iraque.
I am far from agreing with that is happening in Iraque.
However, I do not think it is France's (or UE's or ONU's for that
matter) business what the US is doing in Iraque. Iraque has a
relatively stable government that should represent the will and
interesent of the people in Iraque. As long as the Iraqi government
does not ask the US to retreat its troops (and there are no signs that
the US is trying to manipulate the Iraqi government), the US should
feel free to keep its troops there for as long as they wish.
Unlike communist troops that occupied countries after WW2, the
US troops are helping the local security forces to restore law and
order. Without the support of US troops, the country would probably
fall to anarchy. There are a lot of US casualties in Iraque. The French
article does not mention anything about this.
Pour
répondre à Rachel, Je suis d'accord avec toi que les journaux français
sont surement plus objectif sur les faits américains car ils ont un
regard extérieur sur la situation mais bien sûr ils sont beaucoup moins
objectifs lorsqu'il s'agit de faits français car chaque journaal est
influencé par sa ligne de conduite. Sinon, au sujet de "M. Bush", il
n'est pas choquant que l'on appelle les présidents par Monsieur, même
si c'est vrqi il préférable de dire le président Bush. Il est vrai que
une grande majorité de la France n'apprécie pas le président Bush et
c'est pour cela que l'on peut trouver ce genre de maladresses.
Discussion
I
found that both newspapers are conveniently alike. It wasn't like the
time I was looking through the Polytechnique website to answer some
questions and I found it to be very different to the MIT website.
Basically, The New York Times and Le Monde have the same divisions in
their main pages, which make it easy to navigate through the sites.
The
sections of the two newspapers seemed to be very similar. Both focused
on the news with subsections that included features like art and
culture and the classified sections. The headlines, however, were very
different. While the French headlines in Le Monde focused on relevant
international events like the elections in Honduras in addition to
policy debates about drugs and violence in France, the American
headlines focused on Sadam Huseein, George Bush and illegal
immigration, and companies like Merck facing economic problems and job
cuts.
On
the website of le Monde, I found two interesting subcategories
"Savoirs" and "Examens 2006" under "Pratique." "Savoirs" is a guide
page to conferences on various scientific, social and artistic
subjects. "Examens 2006" is a collection of various articles and seems
to have to do with the "bac". (Maybe one needs some knowledge on
important current events to do well in the "bac"?)
I
agree with the above posts. While the two different newspaper are
divided into similar sections, the headlines are very different. Le
monde focuses more on interanational issues as well as French domestic
issues. It also has more focus on francophone countries. Whereas, NYT
focuses more on US news with a little bit of international news.
It
is true that I do not read a lot of American newspapers. I usually skim
The Tech and whatever I can find in the Student Center. However, I did
not once see any reference to the aleged CIA prisons in Europe. On the
other hand, I have read plenty of such articles in Romanian online
newspapers (mainly because Romanian was accued by the EU to have hosted
such a prison) and there is such an article in "Le Monde". I find it
strange American newspapers do not mention it. Are they censored or do
they just don't care? It could also be the case that I haven't been
paying too much attention ...
I
actually think that the two papers are very different. For instance,
the headlines of the NYTs use very active and colorful language like
referring to levies as a piece of pie and the verbs "kidnapping"
"slaying" and "fights." The headlines of le Monde are much less
editorialized. They simply state that deVillepin is going to "harden"
the government's stance on immigration. Also, the French paper seems
more concerned with international news (at least on the front page)
than the American paper. As far as the subdivisions, I found it
interesting that "societe" comes before "entreprise" in le Monde,
whereas it's not even in the "news" section for the New York Times (but
sports are...).
I
think the 2 newspapers are divided up similarly. However, it seems like
the French focus on international news more than the Americans. For
example, under international news there is an article about the US. I
think it would be more appropriate if it was under national news. Also,
the only common story that is on the front page is related to Iraq.
Au
risque de paraître beaucoup plus futile, j'aimerai dire un mot sur la
comparaison de deux journaux qui sont assez différents et qui pourtant
portent le même nom : Cosmopolitan. Si l'on compare les versions
américaines et françaises, on voit tout de suite la grande différence
de contenu qu'il y a entre les deux ( peut être d'ailleurs que c'est
plus flagrant dans ce type de journaux, il faudrait étudier la question
!)
La différence est telle que je peux facilement affirmer
pouvoir lire la version française en m'amusant alors que je suis
parfois choquée par la version américaine. Soyons honnête, celle-ci est
beaucoup plus trash... Sans parler de la forme, c'est au contenu du
journal que je m'attaquerai plus précisément.
En France, la majorité des articles sont destinés à décrire
les moyens multiples que l'on peut trouver pour être une femme libérée
et équilibrée : Sourire, être optimiste, se réserver des moments de
détente, etc... Enfin, bref une tonne de conseils psychologiques
(parfois un peu simplets, j'avoue) pour voir la vie du bon côté et pour
en profiter au maximum...
Dans la version américaine, on trouve une prolifération de
conseils sexuels : comment le rendre heureux, comment se donner du
plaisir, quelles sont les meilleures positions : bref, un vrai guide
sur comment avoir une vie sexuelle épanouie. Je ne dis pas qu'une telle
rubrique n'est pas présente dans la version française, mais elle est
vraiment insignifiante par rapport à la version américaine...
Ce qui m'amène, vous vous en doutez, à me poser de sérieuses
questions sur la différence de nos besoins... Ou alors c'est que la
presse américaine a besoin de choquer pour vendre... Ou encore
s'agit-il d'une différence de conception de la notion de "politiquement
correct"... La question mérite peut-être d'être creusée...
C'est
raisonnable de voir qu'il y a peu de différence au niveau de division.
Mais le contenu de sujet me étonne un peu. Le NYtimes contient très peu
des informations sur l'Europe. Et la terrorisme est leur priorité. Une
autre chose que j'ai remarqué est la poids mise en partis politiques.Le
Monde a mis beaucoup plus d'accent sur les nouvelles des partis
politiques que le NYtimes.
I
agree with Gwen. I feel like the French headlines are just summaries of
the stories--they are not attention-getters. However, the American
headlines are catchy. Certain words are placed next to each other to
create emotion. Once you feel angry or sad or disgusted, you want to
read more. For instance "safety" and "$32 billion" makes one angry that
the government seems to spend all of its money in the name of safety,
"Nigeria" and "new sordid" makes one feel sorry for Nigerians because
they seem to always get stuck with the short end of the stick, and
"Iraqi military" and "kidnappings and slayings" makes one angry at the
military who is supposed to be keeping peace, not destroying it. I
think that the photos drive this home. I looked at some of the photos
on Le Monde's website and found them really boring...really not
something that made me want to read the article. The pictures on the
NYT's site, however, made me interested in the story before I began to
read it. Do you (French students) find that the headlines and pictures
of the NYT are obnoxious or are they catching for you too?
With respect to the different categories, I thought it was
cool that le Monde had forums, blogs, and polls on its website and that
the NYT did not. Does this mean that French people are more involved in
the news than Americans? Or do Americans just talk about the news at
work or at home and the French interact with news on websites? Also, I
thought that it was interesting to note that there weren't any
obituaries or games in le Monde. I've never understood why Americans
read obituaries, so I can't really comment on that, but crossword
puzzles are fun! Would most French people not play games if there were
some?
While
I agree that the front page of the New York Times discusses less
international news than that of Le Monde, I think it is partially a
product of the audience. Americans who are just skimming the front page
to see what's going on are probably more concerned with National
issues. However, for those readers who would like to know about the
current international events, there is a separate section of the
newspaper dedicated to International news.
Rebecca, I found your comparison of the Cosmopolitan magazines
interesting. It's true that in America, there are a lot of semi-trashy
women's magazines which talk about sex more than they do
self-empowerment and general health. I think this is also a product of
the audience, since it seems that many American readers are just
looking for a fast fix. If you see an American Cosmo , you'll notice
that in addtion to sex, there are often tips on how to quickly lose
weight without too much exertion. The concept is a bit silly, but with
the short attention-span of many Americans, maybe its fitting.
Like
Rachel, I too was surprised with all the blogs and forums I found in Le
Monde. The one section that I thought was interesting was the "Examens
2006". I think Kyungmin mentioned this already, but I'm not really sure
what it is. I think it has to do with the bac, but it seemed to be some
kind of information source that waters down specific events in history.
It's almost like a summary report of certain events that students may
need to know in order to excell in the bac. The first article deals
with the functionality of the German Republic in the 60's.
I think it's kind of cool that a newspaper does this. It's
also kind of scary that students have to know such detailed information
about the German government. If world government knowledge was a
requirement for American tests like the SATs, I think Americans would
get lower scores. (I know I would!)
I know the American news magazine 'U.S. News and World Report'
does rankings of schools, and averages of SAT scores for students
admitted to those schools. Does Le Monde do something similar with the
Bac scores for universities and "grandes ecoles"? Did I miss it
somewhere?
I
agree with everyone for the most part about Le Monde having more of an
international focus that the NY Times. I thought it was interesting
though, that both papers had a regional focus. For instance, in the
NYTimes there was a big artcle about the no confidence vote in Canada.
Le Monde had an article about the President of Algeria going to Paris
for a medical examination.
Rebecca/Maggie, I think that the Cosmopolitan discussion is
interesting and I would like to add some input. While I do find most US
women's magazines very trashy, I think that they serve a purpose for
their readers. From what I have heard the French are much more open
about sexuality compared to Americans, especially Americans in certain
geographic regions. For readers, Cosmo might be their sole source of
sexual education/information. It is the one place that they can go to
to learn about sex because discussing it would be too taboo. Perhaps if
there were more open, frank discussions about sexuality, American women
could focus on more uplifting things like empowerment and their
careers.
I
agree with Maggie, Rachel, and Gwen. I think that in general Americans
are more in a hurry and have the 'go go go' attitude and so in order
for them to read an article, the titles have to be catchy. If the
titles were too descriptive that's all people would read. I also think
that the majority of Americans don't concern themselves much with
things outside their little world. In the grand scheme of things their
priorities are with their own life and only when there is a break in
action will they really sit down and read about what's going on outside
their little world.
I
compared an article in the New York Times on the response of the
American government to the question of alleged secret prisons of CIA in
Eastern Europe with an article in le Monde on the same subject. The
title of the NYT article is "U. S. to Respond to Inquiries Over
Detentions in Europe" and the title of le Monde article is "Washington
s'expliquera sur la CIA en Europe." There is not much difference in the
report of the main statements by the U. S. government, but there are
differences in other parts. The most remarkable difference is that the
NYT article described in much more detail the reaction of the Europeans
and the anger that the case generated in some European officials, while
the anger is not even mentioned in le Monde article. Another
interesting difference is that only the NYT article mentions the
statement by the spokesman of the Department of State that confronting
terrorism is "a shared responsibility of all countries." (perhaps a
sort of excuse by the U. S. government?)
Rebecca,
I've seen a French Cosmopolitian and I think it is much more
similiar to an American fashion magazine called W, although in recent
years this magazine has become more and more celebrity- and
sex-obsessed. There are a huge number of American magazines devoted to
sex tips, celebrity watching, and clothes buying. They are extremely
popular with women and female teenagers. Are there many of this type of
magazine in France as well?
I
compared the two articles (in the international secion of the NYTs and
LeMonde) about the new party formed by Ariel Sharon in Israel, which
has recently been joined by Shimon Peres, who left his own party as
well. The American version uses many quiotes from the two politicians,
and is very concerned with the upcoming elections and how many votes
Peres will bring with him to the new party, and only briefly mentions
the party's platform. Perhaps this is an artifact of the
election-obsessed (or at least competition-obsessed) american public,
or perhaps our more individualistic outlook.
The French version, on the other hand, goes into much more
detail about the people involved in the new party and about it's
platform. It only mentions the elections in the last paragraph. It also
mentions first that Peres is a Nobel laureate, whereas the American
version buries that somewhere in the middle. The writing styles are
also very different- the French paragraphs are generally longer and
more complex. I found it much more informative- more facts and less
opinion.
Have any French students compared these articles? What do you
think of the American version?... try reading it before the french
version and let me know your impressions.
I
also compared the two articles about Peres and Sharon. I found that the
French article actually gave some detail for the plan to create a new
Palestinian country and to get rid of the terrorists. The American
version did not get into the details of the plan.
Both articles mentioned that Peres is a Nobel laureate, but the American version gave a little more on Peres' history.
Both articles mentioned the polls, but the American version
actually gave numbers including margin of error. Maybe this shows that
Americans don't believe the results of polls as easily as the French.
I
read two articles that talked about Bush's speech to the naval academy
about the war in Iraq. I actually found the opposite conclusion to
Gwen. I found that the French article ("Aucun calendrier de retrait des
troupes pour Bush mais la recherche de la 'victoire complete' en Irak")
had many more quotations from politicians as well as from the 35-page
paper that the White House released. In fact, almost the entire article
was quotations! At first, I thought, "Wow! This is really more
straight-forward than the American version." However, the quotations
that the French journalist picked are very different from the ones the
American journalist picked. One of the first things one reads in the
French version is that Bush said, "'Je pense qu'ils ont tort.'" Then,
he goes on to report that Bush said, "'tant que je serai votre
commandant en chef.'" These isolated quotations can be taken very
negatively, especially if taken with the title. Thus, I think the
French journalist does a good job of hiding his opinion in
fact--picking only the quotations that support his view--not
necessarily of reporting the entire story. He leaves out Bush's reason
for not pulling out of Iraq and talks nothing of the political
consequences of the decision, as the American report ("Gaining control
in Iraq and regaining support at home") does.
I also noticed that the NYT has a picture of the Naval Academy
students cheering as well as a close up of President Bush smiling. In
comparision, Le Monde had a similar picture to the one of Bush in the
NYT but farther away...far enough away that one can read the banner in
the background, which reads VICTORY...very subtle, but very effective.
I guess I thought that the French media was less biased than
the American media, more prone to reporting the facts and not the
story. What do you guys think?
Also, a quick question: I noticed that in the part of the
French article that was most negative toward President Bush, the French
journalist called Bush "M. Bush." In English, we would never call the
President "Mr. Bush." "Mr. President" is acceptable, but not just Mr.
Bush. Is this a form of disrespect or is this okay in French. Would you
say M. Chirac?
I
also read the articles about Shimon Peres joining Ariel Sharon new
political party. To generalize the two articles, the one by the NY
Times was more of a biography of Peres, while the article by Le Monde
was more of a commentary on the political philosophy of the new party,
Kadima. I found the French article to be much more insightful. It
discussed some reasons for Peres to change parties (he was beaten in
the Nov. 9 election by Amir Peretz). The article also speculated that
Kadima might rejoin with the labor party after the election. As noted
before, the NY Times articled discussed the statistics of the election
(how legislative seats will change) within the text of the article. The
article in Le Monde had had a special text box on the side to address
this.
Like
most of the other students, I found that it seems like the French and
the Americans have two different styles when it comes to reporting
news. The New York Times tries to draw one in with its big, flashy
headlines that attract ones attention, but I feel don't offer that much
information. On the other hand, the headlines in Le Monde are often
supplemented with a small summary of the following story which I feel
is a better way in which to transmit the story to the reader because it
doesn't sacrifice any of the facts in an attempt to try to interest you
to read it. I feel that some of the headlines in the New York Times do
this and as a result, the information is ambigious at times.
Also, in response to a comment that stated that Le Monde puts
more emphasis on party politics than does the New York Times, I have to
say that while this may be the case in this instance, I don't think
it's the general rule. The New York Times may leave out stories about
party politics because it is such a diversified paper trying to attract
the interests of millions of different people. However, I feel that if
you go to any local newspapers or even other national papers like the
USA Today, there will definitely be more emphasis placed on party
politics.
I
looked at (like some other people, though later articles I think) the
CIA detainees being held abroad. The titles were "Rights Group Lists 26
It Says U.S. Is Holding in Secret Abroad" and "Plus de 300 vols de la
CIA vers l'Europe auraient eu lieu depuis 2001" and the links are
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/02/international/europe/02detainees.html
http://www.lemonde.fr/web/article/0,1-0@2-3214,36-716341@51-705638,0.html
The most striking difference I found was that the NYT version
focused on the human rights problems involved with holding these
prisoners, while the le Monde version focused on the European outrage
over the possibility that these prisoners were being held in their
country. This difference is interesting, perhaps, because it displays
the conflict evident in such perennial displays as anti-war protests:
the notion of heralding "peace" as infinitely greater than "war" in all
situations because with "peace," "no one is dying." The problem is that
people might be dying, but "it's somewhere else" and "who cares about
that place because it's far away." A war hawk might herald "ideals"
instead and say that war will allow us to reach a better status quo.
Obviously I have no answers to these questions besides stating
that one cannot be isolated in today's world, though the connections
which prevent that isolation are very, very, very complex and difficult
to manipulate.
I
read an article on the alleged CIA secret prisons in Europe. I found
that the article in the New York Times was more subjective and
interested in the emotions and reactions of the European governments.
It speculated on the possible ramifications of this discovery and of
possible reasons for why the US would have secret prisons, such as to
torture prisoners in countries where it wasn't illegal. On the other
hand, the French article focused much more heavily on the facts, such
as the number of flights documented. This was part of the title of the
French article, but didn't appear until the last paragraph of the
American article. The French article didn't speculate much on the
consequences and it was much shorter than the American article.
I've read two articles related to the sitation in Iraque:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/02/international/middleeast/02iraq.html
http://www.lemonde.fr/web/article/0,1-0@2-3222,36-716146@51-715757,0.html
The NYT article contains a lot of statistics about the number of
victimes in Iraque. It shows that the situation in Iraque is a lot
better than it used to be one year ago, but it is still from being
perfect (see the 3 recent attacks that caused over 30 deaths each).
The article from "Le Monde" does not really discuss the
situation in Iraque. It contains a lot of quotes of President Bush's.
However, I think that the main intent of the citations is to ridicule
Bush. Furthermore, President Bush is accused of not setting a calendar
for retreating the troops from Iraque.
I am far from agreing with that is happening in Iraque.
However, I do not think it is France's (or UE's or ONU's for that
matter) business what the US is doing in Iraque. Iraque has a
relatively stable government that should represent the will and
interesent of the people in Iraque. As long as the Iraqi government
does not ask the US to retreat its troops (and there are no signs that
the US is trying to manipulate the Iraqi government), the US should
feel free to keep its troops there for as long as they wish.
Unlike communist troops that occupied countries after WW2, the
US troops are helping the local security forces to restore law and
order. Without the support of US troops, the country would probably
fall to anarchy. There are a lot of US casualties in Iraque. The French
article does not mention anything about this.
Pour
répondre à Rachel, Je suis d'accord avec toi que les journaux français
sont surement plus objectif sur les faits américains car ils ont un
regard extérieur sur la situation mais bien sûr ils sont beaucoup moins
objectifs lorsqu'il s'agit de faits français car chaque journaal est
influencé par sa ligne de conduite. Sinon, au sujet de "M. Bush", il
n'est pas choquant que l'on appelle les présidents par Monsieur, même
si c'est vrqi il préférable de dire le président Bush. Il est vrai que
une grande majorité de la France n'apprécie pas le président Bush et
c'est pour cela que l'on peut trouver ce genre de maladresses.