The New York Times is one of those papers that I immediately recognize yet rarely read. While I immediately register the paper as a significant piece of media, I really don't know anything about it. I want to know how the NY Times presents its articles. To learn how the NY Times operates, I've analysed two of their articles for a narrative framework.
Minge, Mark No Title Oct. 22, 2012 via Pixabay
Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication
What greater pest is there than the mosquito? Man's insect nemesis has forced it's way into the news again, carrying a new outbreak of the Zika virus that has the potential to inflict nearly unbelievable damage mainly in South America. A new technique is being used to fight this outbreak. This article, from the New York Times, discusses the use of genetically modified mosquitoes to curb the populations of Zika carrying mosquitoes.
The article does not focus on a single "protagonist", but instead presents a wide collection of people and places attempting to face a singular foe. The main character of this story is its reviled villain, the mosquito. The article uses the looming public health threat and the efforts to eradicate it for its narrative framework.
The setting of this story is scattershot. Focusing mainly in Brazil, the narrative jumps between cities, research labs, and test sites. While it can be disorienting, this approach emphasizes the global nature of the problem at hand.
The main point of discussion in the article is whether or not genetically modified mosquitoes should be used to control the recent Zika outbreak. The stakes of the debate are the potential to cripple one of humanity's oldest enemies held against the feared consequences of releasing a modified version of that enemy.
I feel that the NY Times chose an appropriate narrative for this article. It explains a global problem and asks the reader to judge a particular solution without overtly supporting either side of the debate.
Unlicensed gun sales are rarely one's first thought when Facebook is mentioned. As an article in the NY Times explains, Facebook is trying to keep it this way. Online gun sales are a point of contention in gun control, as they can be difficult to regulate and track. As Facebook is moving to better accommodate e-commerce, it is banning these potentially legal risks.
The main player in this story is Facebook itself. The story focuses on it's attempts to to navigate the goals of the secondary interests. Gun control groups and gun sellers play the supporting roles and provide the central conflict.
The setting of this story is the ever nebulous internet. Without a concrete physical setting this story is able to jump between different players without causing a sense of motion sickness but lacks a grounding sense of location.
While the decision has already been made, the debate in this article is how thoroughly Facebook should regulate its user's sales. While eliminating the potential for illegal gun sales is a necessity for Facebook, it doesn't wish to alienate legal gun sellers as users.
I've never paid much attention to the NY Times, but I may now. From what I've seen it does a reasonable job of responsible reporting. It seems to use narrative frameworks to make news more understandable without skewing the presentation of the piece.
No comments:
Post a Comment