First reading journal

Recently, news publications have been flooded with reports on hurricane Irene.  The New York Times, The Chicago Tribune, and POLITICO all covered Obamas trip to New Jersey, a state heavily devastated by the storm. Although each stories main theme was Obamas trip, which addressed relief efforts, each article’s underlying theme was the relationship between Obama and Chris Christie, (the republican governor of New Jersey who has been rumored to run in the upcoming election). The downfall of our nations economy, and the governments plans to fix the budget crisis have highlighted the differences between Republicans and Democrats. These three articles discuss Obamas promises for relief aid in-lieu-of his plans for cuts in government spending. Because the two men do not see eye-to-eye on the matter of government spending, each reporter was able to also show the discrepancies the two men have in regards to issues other than clean-up efforts. 

The New York Times and the Chicago Tribune were more obvious with their underlying theme. POLITICO let the reader in on the relationship between these two government officials in a more discreet manor. Although the structure of the three articles were similar, they did have some differences. The New York Times started by describing Obamas trip. In the middle and the end of the article the reporter abruptly introduced the relationship that Christie and Obama have. POLITICO started with a quote from Obama that assured the people of New Jersey the issue of government spending will not be effecting relief efforts. The article tells the reader that Obama’s need to assure the people of this is because recent comments from a variety of republicans accused Obama of not allocating money for this issue. Although it opens with this tone, the majority of the article reflects more on Obama’s plans to fix the damage. The Chicago Tribune’s structure differs from the other two the most. It actually has a separate section towards the end called “Unlikely Allies” which separately discusses the debates between the two men in regards to the budget crisis. The Tribune spent the most time discussing the the rivalry the two men face.

It is in the language of these three articles that I was able to detect a clear difference between the three. The New York Times emphasized Obamas words of reassurance to the people of New Jersey. The quotes were mostly from him, and they expressed his condolences as well as promises for relief effort. The article also focused the most on the similar goals that Obama and Christie have by describing their desire to rebuild the state of NJ. POLITICO contained more of Obamas comments on his trip. Unlike The New York Times which used language rich with imagery such as “swollen flood planes”, POLITICO had a heavier use of quotes from Obama’s speech. It was less sentimental and more factual. The Chicago Tribune used specific language to portray Obama and Christie. The language the reporter chose to use when describing Obama made him look like a super-hero, or a charismatic leader. They described Obama as being greeted by thousands of screaming fans, traveling to the poorest of neighborhoods, and they used quotes from his speech that that were absolute promises as opposed to hopeful outlooks. The way the Tribune portrayed Christie was not as flattering. They describe him as “a budget-cutting Republican who has bucked some of his party's fiscal hawks,” and a, “blunt-talking fiscal conservative.” By studying the language alone it seemed to me that the Chicago Tribune had the hardest time taking a unbiased stance on the differences that Obama and Christie have. The language they chose to use made Obama seem like he flew in with an S on his chest to defeat the big, bad Hurricane Irene, and Chris Christie as well.

I think that these three articles are very good examples of the underlying agendas that reporters may have. Their job was to report on Obamas trip, however all articles were rich with political drama. I think its very interesting that all three publications had this underlying theme even though their story was about something different. I can understand why it is important to incorporate the different outlooks the two have regarding the budget, because a portion of the budget will need to be allocated to repair damages in New Jersey. However, I’m not sure it is necessary to bring in the rivalries the two may have regarding Christie’s potential campaign in the upcoming election. It seems that when our nation is faced with an unavoidable crisis, such as a hurricane, we should be focusing on how we will team together to fix the matter at hand instead of glorifying and highlighting the rivalry these two men have.