Rena Adler- Part A, Section B: Explication of Differences between Newspapers

Following the tragic collapse of the I- 35 W bridge in Minneapolis, Minnesota on August 1, 2007, there was a substantial amount of newspaper coverage. The New York Times, New York Post and The Guardian were three newspapers which effectively relayed this topic. Although each newspaper told the same general story of what occurred at the time of the bridge collapse, each chose to focus on diverse aspects and displayed differing points of view. Additionally, each newspaper elected to convey or omit certain facts or details so as to effectively cater to the diverse needs and desires of their respective readers.

Firstly, The New York Times, a Democratic newspaper targeted toward Democratic readers, chose to portray Republican President George W. Bush from a strongly negative standpoint. Prior to the disaster in Minneapolis, President Bush had chosen to veto a bill which would increase taxes on gas in order to provide additional funds for bridge protection. As the title of a New York Times article states, “Bush Rejects Gas Tax as a Way to Shore up Bridges”. However, dislike toward President Bush then proceeds to a larger magnitude; The New York Times uses the opportunity of the bridge collapse as a way to augment past issues they had with the President. The article states, “Mr. Bush…using earmarks to pay for transportation projects like the one supposed to pay for “the bridge to nowhere” in Alaska…” and “America has had just about enough of President Bush’s misguided opportunities.” The ability of the New York Times to make a general statement about the opinion of all Americans, “America has just about had enough…”, shows they are targeted toward a fraction of American readers, namely, Democrats.

In addition, the New York Times articles are not aimed exclusively toward New Yorkers, but rather toward readers from all over the United States. This can be deduced from the fact that after the collapse of Minnesota’s bridge, The New York Times did not only focus on the dire state of New York bridges, “more than 2,000 bridges in New York State meet the federal government’s definition of ‘structurally deficient’”, but on bridges all over the country, “Missouri has only 11 bridges with a design similar to the one in Minneapolis, but Pennsylvania has about 55”.

Also, while The New York Times relates the general story of the disaster that struck Minnesota, “at least 7 people were killed and more than 60 were injured”, as well as tell of the heroism of people such as Jeremy Hernandez who saved an entire bus load of children, in an article entitled, “Stunned Victim Turns Hero”, that is not their focal point. Rather, the majority of articles analyze and intellectually examine the cause of the bridge collapse as well as what to do about similar problems found in bridges all over the United States. As The New York Times headline states, “Hundreds of Inspectors Check Nation’s Old Steel Bridges”

In contrast to The New York Times, The New York Post articles are produced mainly for Republican readers. The writers of New York Post articles show President Bush in a positive manner: “President Bush said he would visit the disaster scene tomorrow…federal government would give aid to Minneapolis”. On the issue of the President vetoing a bill to increase gas taxes so as to provide funds for transportation projects, The New York Post writes, “President Bush should call off his plan to veto a bill that would provide much- needed funding…” By use of the word “should” The New York Post tones down the enormity of President Bush’s decision.

Additionally, The New York Post is clearly targeted toward New York readers. This can be seen by the fact that after the catastrophe in Minnesota, The New York Post focused on bridges across New York that are in need of repair, “state inspectors have determined that 84 percent of the city’s 19 largest spans remain in poor or fair condition...” and “in New York we do not have any bridges that are structurally deficient”. The New York Post scarcely mentions the problems found in bridges all over the United States; something which is a prevalent topic in The New York Times.

Furthermore, unlike The New York Times, The New York Post is uninterested in the logistics of why the bridge collapsed, “it is clearly much too early in the initial stages of this investigation to have any idea what happened”. Instead, The New York Post’s articles tell countless personal anecdotes involving individual stories of escape from the collapsing bridge, “I slammed on my brakes and saw something in front of me disappear…” The New York Post provides for its lower and middle class readers by giving them the emotional aspects of the story.

The Guardian, unlike The New York Times and The New York Post, is written for British individuals who do not have strong nationalistic feelings toward America. This can be seen from the manner in which The Guardian, in direct contrast to The New York Post states, “the collapse highlights again the lack of investment by the world’s superpower in much of its infrastructure…” The above statement is surely not one which Americans wish to hear. Indeed, The New York Post claims, “even after billions of tax dollars were spent to repair the city’s bridges over the past decade…”

As in The New York Post, but unlike The New York Times, The Guardian focuses upon the emotional aspect involving individual stories of escape, “cars started flying and I was falling and saw the water.” The Guardian does not choose to elaborate on the reasons for the disaster in Minnesota or what must be done in the future for other American bridges in need of repair. As The Guardian is written for non- American readers, their interest in an American bridge collapse is limited.

Moreover, The Guardian overtly states problems found in American infrastructure. As a heading in The Guardian proclaims, “77,000 Bridges in Need of Urgent Repair”. The Guardian, a British newspaper, has no need to fear escalated levels of panic amongst their readers due to fear or worry about crossing other American bridges. Conversely, The New York Times and The New York Post use diction which tones down the severity of the matter. A word such as “urgent” which strongly connotes a sense that the bridges are in dire need of immediate repair, do not appear in American headlines. A title in The New York Times on the same subject reads, “States Across the Country Race to Inspect Bridges” while The New York Post states, “City Needs a Dr.; 84% of Crossings are Rated ‘Poor’ or ‘Fair’” . Furthermore, The New York Post subtly causes readers to feel less worry toward the situation of bridges all over New York through comically relaying the city’s need to call upon a “doctor”.