“Interpretive Analysis”

Journalism & Communication
3 pages (750 words)
The story which was chosen as a subject for this interpretive analysis is about recent Russian involvement in military conflict known as Syrian Civil War. In September 2015 it became known for the wide public that Russia is directly involved in the Syrian Civil War. Above usual (but now much bigger) supplying of ammo, rockets and guns it is now proven that Russia sent its own armed forces and military consultants to Syria for training and participation in combat (Cooper, 56). More than that Russian military air base was shot on satellite cameras. In the light of Russian aggression against Ukraine and the fact that whole world criticizes Russian Government not only with words but also with economic sanctions this step of Vladimir Putin became breaking news immediately. Syrian Civil War affects American Middle East interests greatly and so Russian involvement in this highly risky venture right now seems like a presentation of the policy of force to NATO, United Nations, European Union and USA in particular.

However both news television casts don’t make or even provoke any conclusions. In spite of it both BBC and CNN make Russian actions talk for themselves. It is also significant to add that both BBC and CNN videos not inform on the matter of some particular event but rather try to build a whole picture from the pieces known before.

Both television casts have similar headlines; CNN: “What is Russia up to in Syria?” and BBC: “What is Russia’s role in Syria?” They not only sound identically but they also are both stated in a form of question.

In my opinion CNN represents this event in a more emotional voice because US interests are more influenced by the direct Russian involvement in the Syrian conflict than Britain’s interests. But BBC in its turn remembers overall cold relationships between the two presidents of US and Russia – Barack Obama and Vladimir Putin. It even gives additional information about their meeting on a summit this month that CNN doesn’t mention at all. Both videos talk about supplying the guns and present proofs. Both videos talk about Russian military air base. And also both videos give Vladimir Putin’s statements that there is nothing wrong in such military help. However this difference is slight and overall tone of both television broadcasts is rather neutral.

That means that at this stage I can’t state that one of them lacks accuracy uses stereotypes. And therefore both videos can be named counter-hegemonic because they both reflect facts without prejudices and stereotypes. But as we have two more details to observe and discuss we can look more at this USA/UK amount of interest in this quite nasty situation made by Russia.

But this again can move me to the decision to state that both videos are equally accurate and if they fail in some ways they both do it. For example, only BBC states that before admitting huge military help for Syria Russia have absolutely and totally denied it before. Therefore instead of making an analytical approach and question the events like CNN does, BBC reminds people about previous denying of Russia’s direct involvement and tones down Putin’s statements.

Reminding of previous lie makes Putin’s new statements not so solid. Basing on the last detail which is different footages from the military combat actions my ultimate conclusion will be to state that both news excerpts wok in unison backing each other. That is because footages are different but they both show Russian positions in Syria, military actions of the war participants and they both provide a disquiet mood making viewer ask himself about the events mentioned. Therefore both news broadcasts succeed fully with their united efforts in reflecting Russian actions in a negative light. CNN also shows that Russian planes moved over the NATO air corridor which is prohibited by the UN because weapon supplying should be (perfectly it shouldn’t at all) be sanctioned only with an agreement of all the important geopolitical players meaning General Assembly of the UN.

The lack of accuracy, in my opinion, presents itself in the instance with which each of the news broadcasts tries to tell the whole story. That makes viewer not be sorry about spending another couple of minutes to watch BBC alongside with CNN to make a complete picture of the situation. However at first point, as you remember, it seemed that both videos are almost identical.