I
found an article that talks about the bombings in Pakistan. It was
surprisingly hard to find an article that spoke about the same subject
in both the New York Times and Le Mode. The article had a lot of
similarities, which I presume can be attributed to the fact that this a
topic that does not relate events that occurred in the US or France and
so both paper are impartial.
The death tolls were different according to the two articles
and I found it interesting that Le Monde had US reaction to the bombing
whereas the New York Times did not have that element.
Also, on the "international" page of Le Monde, a lot of the
news stories covered francophone countries and so these countries were
somewhat different than those mentioned in the New York Times.
Hi,
I read an article about a rebel attack to the capital of Chad. I saw
that Le Monde focused on two main topics: 1. the accusation that the
rebels made to France, accusing it of military intervention, and 2. the
accusation the president of Chad made to the president of Sudan,
accusing him of aiding the rebels. On the other hand, the New York
Times focused mostly on the president of Chad, Mr.Déby, and the
political instability of the country. The article in Le Monde had
pictures of french and chadian soldiers and the article in the New York
Times had a picture of Mr. Déby. Also, the article in the New York
times gave some historical background, while the article in Le Monde
didn't.
I
too read the same articles as Adriana. It was definitely hard to find
similar articles in the two papers. I noticed that the US article was
more negative and sarcastic than the French article. The NYT, instead
of focusing on the actual event, focused more on the president. They
made it seem like he could lose control any day and actually had no
extent to be president (mentioning how he gained presidency, how he
changed the constitution to stay president longer, etc). They even made
him seem like a liar, at one point saying that the president told the
reporters the rebels were defeated, while the reporter could still hear
shots in the background. Le Monde also tallked a lot about the event-
like the details of the attack, how many were dead, etc. that the NYT
did not cover in such detail.
I
read two articles about the protests in Nepal ("Young Nepalese Lead
Their Nation's Push for Democracy" and "Au Népal, les promesses de
réformes démocratiques du roi ne convainquent pas".) The people there
have been trying to do away with the monarchy for years, but they have
become even more desperate since last February, when the king got rid
of the last elected officials and replaced them with his own minions.
These recent protests have been going on for several days now and have
resulted in violent confrontations with the police, leaving at least 4
people dead and hundreds wounded.
In his New Year's address (the Nepalis follow a different
calendar), the king did not directly mention the protests, but
responded to them indirectly by saying that new elections would be
held.
The Le Monde article, interestingly, focused on the skepticism
of the people with regard to the king's promises. Apparently, no one
believes in his sincerity. The New York Times article did not mention
anyone's criticisms or reservations about the king's remarks, but only
noted that the king had set no date for the elections. The focus of the
NYT article was on the lives of individual protesters they had
interviewed, noting their motivations for the protests, including the
political history leading up to these recent demonstrations. Both
articles mentioned that the U.N. has warned the government of Nepal
that the continued use of "excessive" force against the protesters
might affect the U.N.'s peacekeeping missions, which the NYT article
noted is a very good source of income for Nepal...
Hey,
i read the same two articles as ashley. I was also very surprised at
the dificulty of finding two articles that talked about the same event.
Both of the international sections were very full and had articles
about many different countries but they didn't seem to focus on the
same events.
In the two articles on nepal, the NYT and Le monde seemed to
have very similar takes on the stories. Both talked about the king's
address at midnight and how it did very little to reasssure the poeple.
However, I agree with ashley in that the NYT focused much more on
individual stories and reasons for protests while Le Monde gave a more
general overview. I also found it interesting how both papers mentioned
the UN reaction to the force that the police had been using. However, I
felt that the NYT put more of an emphaisis on the people who had been
wounded than Le monde did. Both however, gave the same number dead and
the same approximation to the number wounded.
Discussion
I
found an article that talks about the bombings in Pakistan. It was
surprisingly hard to find an article that spoke about the same subject
in both the New York Times and Le Mode. The article had a lot of
similarities, which I presume can be attributed to the fact that this a
topic that does not relate events that occurred in the US or France and
so both paper are impartial.
The death tolls were different according to the two articles
and I found it interesting that Le Monde had US reaction to the bombing
whereas the New York Times did not have that element.
Also, on the "international" page of Le Monde, a lot of the
news stories covered francophone countries and so these countries were
somewhat different than those mentioned in the New York Times.
Hi,
I read an article about a rebel attack to the capital of Chad. I saw
that Le Monde focused on two main topics: 1. the accusation that the
rebels made to France, accusing it of military intervention, and 2. the
accusation the president of Chad made to the president of Sudan,
accusing him of aiding the rebels. On the other hand, the New York
Times focused mostly on the president of Chad, Mr.Déby, and the
political instability of the country. The article in Le Monde had
pictures of french and chadian soldiers and the article in the New York
Times had a picture of Mr. Déby. Also, the article in the New York
times gave some historical background, while the article in Le Monde
didn't.
I
too read the same articles as Adriana. It was definitely hard to find
similar articles in the two papers. I noticed that the US article was
more negative and sarcastic than the French article. The NYT, instead
of focusing on the actual event, focused more on the president. They
made it seem like he could lose control any day and actually had no
extent to be president (mentioning how he gained presidency, how he
changed the constitution to stay president longer, etc). They even made
him seem like a liar, at one point saying that the president told the
reporters the rebels were defeated, while the reporter could still hear
shots in the background. Le Monde also tallked a lot about the event-
like the details of the attack, how many were dead, etc. that the NYT
did not cover in such detail.
I
read two articles about the protests in Nepal ("Young Nepalese Lead
Their Nation's Push for Democracy" and "Au Népal, les promesses de
réformes démocratiques du roi ne convainquent pas".) The people there
have been trying to do away with the monarchy for years, but they have
become even more desperate since last February, when the king got rid
of the last elected officials and replaced them with his own minions.
These recent protests have been going on for several days now and have
resulted in violent confrontations with the police, leaving at least 4
people dead and hundreds wounded.
In his New Year's address (the Nepalis follow a different
calendar), the king did not directly mention the protests, but
responded to them indirectly by saying that new elections would be
held.
The Le Monde article, interestingly, focused on the skepticism
of the people with regard to the king's promises. Apparently, no one
believes in his sincerity. The New York Times article did not mention
anyone's criticisms or reservations about the king's remarks, but only
noted that the king had set no date for the elections. The focus of the
NYT article was on the lives of individual protesters they had
interviewed, noting their motivations for the protests, including the
political history leading up to these recent demonstrations. Both
articles mentioned that the U.N. has warned the government of Nepal
that the continued use of "excessive" force against the protesters
might affect the U.N.'s peacekeeping missions, which the NYT article
noted is a very good source of income for Nepal...
Hey,
i read the same two articles as ashley. I was also very surprised at
the dificulty of finding two articles that talked about the same event.
Both of the international sections were very full and had articles
about many different countries but they didn't seem to focus on the
same events.
In the two articles on nepal, the NYT and Le monde seemed to
have very similar takes on the stories. Both talked about the king's
address at midnight and how it did very little to reasssure the poeple.
However, I agree with ashley in that the NYT focused much more on
individual stories and reasons for protests while Le Monde gave a more
general overview. I also found it interesting how both papers mentioned
the UN reaction to the force that the police had been using. However, I
felt that the NYT put more of an emphaisis on the people who had been
wounded than Le monde did. Both however, gave the same number dead and
the same approximation to the number wounded.