This graphic was originally posted by a blogger Aluation. Here are two version of the same article on the recent arrests at Occupy Wallstreet in New York. The first one subtly portrays New York police as the aggressors, whereas an edit twenty minutes later shifts that accusation to the demonstrators. It is important to note that the author was changed from Colin Moynhan to Al Baker and Colin Moynhan in the second version. Al Baker, coincidentally, is the NYPD's bureau.
The difference in the two versions seems to lie mainly in intent. The sequence of events is the same in both versions: protesters go onto bridge, police arrest protesters. In the first version however, police "allow" protesters onto the bridge. Then they arrest dozens. In the second version, police arrested hundreds, after protesters "marched onto the bridge" in "a tense showdown".
The language in the second version implies that protesters breached some sort of rule, marching onto the bridge, and that there was a tense showdown between two forces. Of course the implication is since there are two forces, one must be good, and the other evil, and the police must be the good ones since the protesters were the ones to break the rule. The police were successful at the end of the day, as they arrested "hundreds" which is significantly more than the previous "dozens".
The first version had the two forces reversed, with the police being portrayed as the bad guys for their hypocrisy. The NYPD had "allowed" protesters to go onto the bridge, followed by arrests. Here the police are obviously the bad guys for betraying the protesters, for leading them into a trap.
Reasons for the change? Considering Al Baker's involvement, it would probably be fair to guess to maintain the NYPD as a healthy and just peace keeping force. What actually happened? That's unclear. Even the numbers are unclear; dozens and hundreds are very different estimates. Sure technically if you have more dozens than you have hundreds you might get the same approximation, but that's not the implication of the text.
I'm surprised that the NY Times would so blatantly allow themselves to be influenced by the NYPD in this case. I've always thought of them preserving their viewpoint, however liberal it may be; but since they're willing to flip flop on an issue within 20 minutes, they're undermining their pre-established authority as a global news source. It's also surprising that the simple change of wording is enough to completely change the effect of the article. It serves to show that ideas are equally as important as the way their expressed.
ReplyDelete