Wednesday, June 15, 2005

Kofi Annan and Oil-for-Food: Two Very Different Perspectives

Fox News is typically much tougher on the U.N. and Kofi Annan than CNN, as I have documented before. Today is no exception with both web sites running stories on an email (CNN has one email, Fox refers to two emails) that potentially links Annan to the oil-for-food scandal. CNN raises doubts in their article about the credibility and significance of the email. Fox makes it sound much more ominous. Here is a comparison of the first two sentences. CNN says investigators are “reviewing” an email while Fox says they are "probing" and “'urgently reviewing' fresh evidence.” Fox also adds "scandal-scarred" when referring to the oil-for-food program. CNN's second sentence show some discounting of the email's significance. Fox talks of “new questions” and “fresh evidence” to indicate that this is a continuation of previous allegations. Fox also notes that this information contradicts Annan's previous claims. These first two sentences are indicative of the tone and perspective of their entire articles.

CNN: Investigators probing the United Nations' oil-for-food program said Tuesday they are reviewing an e-mail that suggests a communication between Secretary-General Kofi Annan and the company that won a lucrative contract and employed his son. Spokesmen for Annan and the Swiss company Cotecna were quick to discount the document's significance.

FOX: U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan faces new questions over whether he lied to independent investigators probing the scandal-scarred Oil-for-Food program. Those investigators said Tuesday they were "urgently reviewing" fresh evidence.

The difference between these two articles is dramatically different! If you just read one of the articles, you need to read the other as well.

Urls of the articles:

No comments: