Tuesday, September 11th
BBC (London) – 9:40am
The first thing the man being interviewed mentions is a “declaration of war”. The news anchor repeats President Bush’s comment about hunting down those responsible. The man also mentions governments that may be harboring terrorists and how that will make them “very vulnerable” to possible action against them. This coverage focuses more on a possible U.S. retaliation rather than helping the victims. The tone doesn’t sound like it’s a tragedy at all and the news anchor speaks about the situation very calmly. I did notice that the camera angle does not move or shift at all: this may be an effort to have the viewer focus on what the man being interviewed is saying. The station also does a playback of the second plane hitting the twin towers and its subsequent fireball.
TCN (Texas) – 9:40am
This report is very different from the BBC coverage. The news anchor is only mentioning details. She is talking about the aircraft, where they all departed from, and also briefly mentions the 1990′s Muslim bombing of the same location. This report differs from the BBC report mainly by what it intends to put in the viewers head. The BBC coverage puts forth ideas of retaliation which lead the people watching to have their eyes on the country as a whole. The TCN coverage gives out as much detail as it can which allows viewers to draw their own conclusions and think about what may happen next. This anchor also sounds more concerned. She doesn’t mention anything about President Bush or America’s response but she does focus entirely on “victims, casualties, and rescue efforts”. The camera angle shows both towers burning.
Monday, September 17th
CBC (Ottawa) – 5:20pm
This network is very similar to BBC in how it is only really focusing on the reaction of the U.S. The man being interviewed has a concerned tone (less emotionally concerned, more political) and begins speaking about the U.N. and how as policymakers they must act to be a part of the battle against terrorism. He also mentions terrorists using Canada as a safe haven and an “aircraft carrier for the Jihad”. Another government representative comes into the camera and begins being interviewed. He quotes a U.S. military official and says “not to react would be to give a free hand to these people but to react in the wrong way would create a new set of martyrs and problems”.
FOX (Washington, DC) – 5:20pm
This network is focusing on the families of the victims and is talking about the local area residents who are affected by the attacks. The news reporter speaks in a respectful tone that matches the camera angles being used. The focus of the camera is on the family of the victims and their memorial services. At the bottom of the screen the caption sends updates about anti-Islamic, Muslim, and Arabic attacks.
From September 11th to September 17th, the tone of domestic news channels changed more than the foreign ones did. In the beginning, channels such as BBC and CBC focused on the U.S. response to terrorists. There were less changes in the camera angle (this may have been to make the viewer focus on what was being said). In contrast, the domestic stations were very different. One thing I noticed is that a few stations began showing “UNDER ATTACK” rather than “BREAKING NEWS” (one of them was GLVSN, a Latin broadcaster in New York). To viewers, the two phrases could really change the message coming from the news stations from “let’s provide important less biased information” (breaking news) to “let’s instill fear or arouse emotions” (under attack). This observation parallels the other things I noticed while watching the clips. Non-American stations generally reported information about how their country would aid the United States in the fight against terrorists. They also put more importance on the future U.S. reaction rather than the (then) current terrorist situation. The American stations focused on facts solely on facts surrounding the confusion. As the day progressed, the reporters grew even more emotional and concerned in comparison to their non-American counterparts. They also interviewed normal eyewitnesses that experienced the destruction. Foreign reporters interviewed their elected officials and terrorism experts.