Full Ebook of This Is What They Tell Us The Us Printing Press On The 2011 Revolution in Egypt The Us Printing Press On The 2011 Revolution in Egypt 1St Edition Annika Witzel Online PDF All Chapter

This is what they tell US The US
Printing Press on the 2011 Revolution

in Egypt The US Printing Press on the
2011 Revolution in Egypt 1st Edition
Annika Witzel
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmeta.com/product/this-is-what-they-tell-us-the-us-printing-press-on-the-2
011-revolution-in-egypt-the-us-printing-press-on-the-2011-revolution-in-egypt-1st-editi
on-annika-witzel/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...
This Is Why They Hate Us Aaron H. Aceves
https://ebookmeta.com/product/this-is-why-they-hate-us-aaron-h-
aceves/
US Democracy Promotion after the Cold War Stability

Basic Premises and Policy toward Egypt 1st Edition
Annika Elena Poppe
https://ebookmeta.com/product/us-democracy-promotion-after-the-
cold-war-stability-basic-premises-and-policy-toward-egypt-1st-
edition-annika-elena-poppe/
The Fourth Turning Is Here: What the Seasons of History

Tell Us about How and When This Crisis Will End Neil
Howe
https://ebookmeta.com/product/the-fourth-turning-is-here-what-
the-seasons-of-history-tell-us-about-how-and-when-this-crisis-
will-end-neil-howe/
On Wide Seas The US Navy in the Jacksonian Era 1st

Edition Claude Berube
https://ebookmeta.com/product/on-wide-seas-the-us-navy-in-the-
jacksonian-era-1st-edition-claude-berube/
The Marketing Revolution in Politics What Recent U S
Presidential Campaigns Can Teach Us about Effective
Marketing 1st Edition Bruce I. Newman
https://ebookmeta.com/product/the-marketing-revolution-in-
politics-what-recent-u-s-presidential-campaigns-can-teach-us-
about-effective-marketing-1st-edition-bruce-i-newman/
Bioviolence How the Powers That Be Make Us Do What They

Want 1st Edition William Watkin
https://ebookmeta.com/product/bioviolence-how-the-powers-that-be-
make-us-do-what-they-want-1st-edition-william-watkin/
Digital Renaissance What Data and Economics Tell Us

about the Future of Popular Culture Joel Waldfogel
https://ebookmeta.com/product/digital-renaissance-what-data-and-
economics-tell-us-about-the-future-of-popular-culture-joel-
waldfogel/
Everybody Lies What the Internet Can Tell Us About Who

We Really Are Stephens Davidowitz Seth
https://ebookmeta.com/product/everybody-lies-what-the-internet-
can-tell-us-about-who-we-really-are-stephens-davidowitz-seth/
Give Us This Day Sidney Stewart
https://ebookmeta.com/product/give-us-this-day-sidney-stewart/
Annika Witzel
This is what they tell US

The US Printing Press on the
2011 Revolution in Egypt
Copyright © 2013. Diplomica Verlag. All rights reserved.
Anchor Academic Publishing

disseminate knowledge
This is what they tell US: The US Printing Press on the 2011 Revolution in Egypt : The US Printing Press on the 2011 Revolution in Egypt, Diplomica Verlag, 2013. ProQuest Ebook
Annika Witzel
This is what they tell US: The US Printing Press on the 2011 Revolution in Egypt
ISBN: 978-3-95489-510-6
Fabrication: Anchor Academic Publishing, an Imprint of Diplomica® Verlag GmbH,
Hamburg, 2013
All rights reserved. This publication may not be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system
or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying,
recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the publishers.
Dieses Werk ist urheberrechtlich geschützt. Die dadurch begründeten Rechte,

insbesondere die der Übersetzung, des Nachdrucks, des Vortrags, der Entnahme von
Abbildungen und Tabellen, der Funksendung, der Mikroverfilmung oder der
Vervielfältigung auf anderen Wegen und der Speicherung in Datenverarbeitungsanlagen,
bleiben, auch bei nur auszugsweiser Verwertung, vorbehalten. Eine Vervielfältigung
dieses Werkes oder von Teilen dieses Werkes ist auch im Einzelfall nur in den Grenzen
der gesetzlichen Bestimmungen des Urheberrechtsgesetzes der Bundesrepublik
Deutschland in der jeweils geltenden Fassung zulässig. Sie ist grundsätzlich
vergütungspflichtig. Zuwiderhandlungen unterliegen den Strafbestimmungen des
Urheberrechtes.
Die Wiedergabe von Gebrauchsnamen, Handelsnamen, Warenbezeichnungen usw. in
diesem Werk berechtigt auch ohne besondere Kennzeichnung nicht zu der Annahme,
dass solche Namen im Sinne der Warenzeichen- und Markenschutz-Gesetzgebung als frei
zu betrachten wären und daher von jedermann benutzt werden dürften.

Die Informationen in diesem Werk wurden mit Sorgfalt erarbeitet. Dennoch können
Fehler nicht vollständig ausgeschlossen werden und der Verlag, die Autoren oder
Übersetzer übernehmen keine juristische Verantwortung oder irgendeine Haftung für evtl.
verbliebene fehlerhafte Angaben und deren Folgen.
© Diplomica Verlag GmbH
http://www.diplomica-verlag.de, Hamburg 2013
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1
1.1. The 2011 Egyptian revolution ..................................................................... 4
1.2. The papers.................................................................................................... 9
1.3. Methodology.............................................................................................. 12
2. Analysis ............................................................................................................ 14
2.1. Editorial .................................................................................................... 14
2.1.1.The Wall Street Journal ........................................................................... 15
2.1.2.New York Times ....................................................................................... 16
2.1.3.San Francisco Chronicle ......................................................................... 18
2.1.4.The Washington Times............................................................................. 20
2.1.5.Conclusion ............................................................................................... 22
2.2. News story ....................................................................................................... 24
2.2.2.New York Times ....................................................................................... 27
2.2.5.Conclusion ............................................................................................... 33
2.3. Letter to the Editor ......................................................................................... 35
2.3.2.New York Times ....................................................................................... 37
2.3.5.Conclusion ............................................................................................... 43
3. Conclusion ....................................................................................................... 44
4. Works Cited .................................................................................................... 47

4.1. Primary sources .............................................................................................. 47
New York Times ................................................................................................ 49
San Francisco Chronicle .................................................................................. 55
The Washington Times...................................................................................... 57
4.2. Secondary sources........................................................................................... 59
1. Introduction
“Lotus Revolution” (Egypt State Information Service1), “18-Day Revolution” (Arm-
bruster 2011), “Nile Revolution” (Murdock February 8, 2011), “Facebook Revolution”
(Herrera February 12, 2011) – what happened in Egypt at the beginning of 2011 was
given many different titles. Some even call it “the most unexpected development in
modern Egyptian history” (Sharp 2011b: 2). After 18 days of protests in Cairo and other
cities all over Egypt, the Egyptian people made their President Hosni Mubarak resign.
He had been ruling the country for almost 30 years and his people wanted to get rid of
him and his regime. That was their goal and that is what they achieved.
Of course there were international reactions to the uprisings from all over the world.
“Numerous press reports […] have recounted feelings of popular empowerment and
pride inspired by the exploits of Egypt’s young protesters” (Sharp 2011b: 5). During the
revolution, European leaders urged “Egypt’s transition to a new government” at the be-
ginning of February (Murdock February 4), while China blocked the word “Egypt” from
a twitter-like micro blogging website, according to Associated Press (quoted by Al
Jazeera 2011).Further, when considering recent developments in Libya and Syria, other
Middle Eastern countries seem to be inspired by the revolutions in both Tunisia and
Egypt. After Mubarak had stepped down on February 11, the reactions were even
stronger – “Today, we are all Egyptians”, stated Norwegian Prime Minister Jens Stolten-
berg and David Cameron suggested “We should teach the Egyptian revolution in our
schools” (ESIS 2011).
However, the United States seem to keep a particularly eager eye on the most popu-
lous country of the Middle East. Souad Mekhennet, New York Times and ZDF corre-
spondent, states in an interview with the German medium magazine that “curiously, the
American media reacted much faster than the European” when it comes to reporting
about the Egyptian revolution (Milz 2011: 20). Moreover, she adds that the large US
media outlets’ reporting on the topic is “much more continuous and broader” (ibid.),
giving a lot more background information on the region. This special attention is most
likely due to the fact that for the United States, Egypt is a highly important actor when it
comes to foreign policy in the region. Egypt is, behind Israel, the second-largest recipi-
ent of military aid from the US (cf. Armbruster 2011: 48), receiving an annual amount of
$1.3 billion (Sharp 2011b: preface). To the United States, this form of support “has long
been framed as an investment in regional stability […], sustaining the March 1979 Egyp-
1
Abbreviated ESIS from this point onwards
tian-Israeli peace treaty” (ibid.). With the fall of Mubarak the United States saw this sta-
bility crumbling. Ever since the “Greater Middle East Initiative” was introduced by
George W. Bush in 2005, the United States has been trying to export democracy to other
Arab countries, including Egypt (Armbruster 2011: 48). However, when the Muslim
Brotherhood, an Islamist party, managed to reach a relatively high percentage of votes in
Egyptian elections, the US backed off again because “they preferred Mubarak over the
feared Brotherhood” (ibid). Hosni Mubarak was long considered a stalwart ally to the
US and during the revolution, when Mubarak’s reign was close to over, it was uncertain
which system and which people would follow the President. The United States feared
that Egypt might become an anti-American Islamic state, ruled by the Muslim Brother-
hood (cf. Sharp 2009: 12). On the other hand, democracy is a concept that has always
been promoted by the United States and it would have felt wrong to them not to support
it in Egypt when people are demonstrating for it. For these reasons, the United States
government was facing a dilemma when confronted with the uprisings in Egypt. Should
they support Mubarak or the people in the streets? This was one of the most discussed
aspects in various news reports at that time and will be the main focus of this analysis.
One problem when looking at the Western way of reporting such events is that
stereotypes and prejudices can often get in the way of suitable and just reporting. Ulrich
Kienzle, an expert when it comes to reporting from and about the Middle East, recalls in
the German medium magazin that the revolution at first seems “typically Egyptian” to
him (Kienzle 2011: 25). “I thought the demonstrators would smash everything for two or
three days, venting their anger, and then back down again. As always” (ibid.). However,
that was not the case and many Western journalists, Middle East experts and politicians
were taken by surprise by the fact that the protests just did not stop. “Very often, clichés
are stronger than reality – also among correspondents”, says Kiezle. Not being able to
maintain the journalistic objectivity actually required when reporting on such an event, is
not an uncommon problem. Michael Schudson starts his book Discovering the news with
the sentence “American Journalism has been regularly criticized for failing to be ‘objec-
tive’” (1987: 3). However, the question is whether it is even possible to produce a news
text which is completely objective. “Letting the news speak for themselves also produces
news reports which are evaluative and judgmental” (Harrison 2008: 39). This is based on
the fact that journalists are almost free to decide which news coming from which source
are going to be in the text and which are not. Therefore, the selection alone of what is
considered newsworthy, contributes to a newspaper article never being completely ob-
jective.
Nonetheless, this study is more concerned with the political bias US newspapers are said
to have and carry through their news reporting. Many papers are said to lean towards the
liberal or conservative side and this is reflected in their reporting. This study investigates
whether this also holds true for US coverage on the Egyptian revolution of 2011. How
did the US print media depict the 2011 revolution in Egypt? Are there any differences in
reporting within the media landscape? This study aims at answering these questions by
looking at four newspapers from the United States and their news coverage throughout
the 18 days of the revolution in Egypt2. Of course, these problems with biased media
outlets are not only to be found in the United States. As Danuta Reah states about the
press in the United Kingdom, “[t]he problem of bias in the press is not a matter of who,
or of what system, is supported. The problem is that the bias exists [...]” (2002: preface).
Even so, as the relationship between the United States and Egypt is particularly tense due
to the reasons explained above, this research aims at looking at US print media rather
than any other country’s press.
The medium chosen for this analysis are newspapers. Although the number of
people who read a newspaper on a daily basis has decreased strongly in the last years
due to the development of Internet news platforms, tablet PCs and smartphones, news-
papers are, indeed, not an extinct species. Especially when it comes to features, profiles,
or just extensive news reports, newspapers are still highly respected by people looking
for news and information (Linden 2010:12). According to Linden, the Internet often
serves as a direct news informant, delivering the most important information fast, direct
and impersonal, while newspapers have enough room to produce background stories
(ibid.). Danuta Reah even takes it a step further, stating that newspapers “present the
reader with aspects of the news, and present it often in a way that intends to guide the
ideological stance of the reader” (Reah 2002: 50). Of course it would also be interesting
to investigate different broadcasting stations delivering news about the revolution in
Egypt. However, newspaper articles are easier to access from any country in the world.
In addition to that, one can expect to find a greater variability of reporting in newspapers
than e.g. on TV, due to the fact that print journalists can work and research undercover
more easily, while TV journalists often have to rely on wire reports or pictures from oth-
er stations. That would probably have led to the problem of a lot of TV stations showing
the same pictures about the revolution, which would have made a comparison rather
difficult.
2
A more thorough description of the methodology can be found in chapter 1.3.
The following chapter gives an overview of the 2011 revolution in Egypt. It is important
to understand the background and the development of this ‘homegrown’ revolution.
Therefore, the reasons for the Egyptian people to demonstrate against their country’s
regime are outlined and followed by a relatively detailed chronology of events.
1.1. The 2011 Egyptian revolution

Strictly speaking, the 2011 revolution in Egypt already started on June 7, 2010. That day,
a young man named Khaled Said was heavily beaten up by policemen in Alexandria,
resulting in numerous fractures of his face and skull that led to his death (Armbruster
2011: 17). “The events leading to Khaled’s killing originated when he supposedly posted
a video of two police officers allegedly dividing the spoils of a drug bust” (Herrera Feb-
ruary 12, 2011). That kind of citizen journalism was the only way for young Egyptians to
react to their corrupt guardians of the law (ibid.). The state-ruled media outlets were
highly corrupt and biased. After beating him to death, the Alexandrian police told every-
one Khaled Said was a drug addict who died because he swallowed a pack of drugs. Alt-
hough everyone knew that was a lie, the policemen never even had to justify themselves
in court. “That’s the way things are in authoritarian Egypt” (Armbruster 2011: 17.).
However, Khaled Said and his tragic brutal death were not forgotten, especially
not among the members of Egypt’s young Internet generation. The facebook group “We
are all Khaled Said” started distributing pictures of Said’s smashed face and connected
with other oppositional groups, such as “Kefaya”3, the “April 6 movement”, the “Social-
ist Revolutionaries”, the “Muslim Brotherhood” (Egypt State Information Service 2011)
and the “National Association for Change” founded by Nobel Peace Prize holder Mo-
hammed El-Baradei (Armbruster 2011: 17) in order to plan a “Day of Rage4, a march
against ‘Torture, Corruption, Poverty and Unemployment’ for January 25, 2011” (Herre-
ra February 12, 2011). The opposition groups did not chose this day by chance, for Jan-
uary 25 is also the day chosen by the Egyptian government to honor and celebrate Egyp-
tian police (ibid.).
One could say that Khaled Said’s death was only the tip of the iceberg to the young
Egyptians. They had numerous reasons to be enraged about the living conditions in their
country. Approximately 20 percent of Egypt’s 80 million inhabitants live in poverty and
“international estimates suggest that up to 40 percent of Egyptians live on less than $2 a
3
Translates to ‘enough’ (Armbruster 2011: 48)
4
In numerous other sources, the Day of Rage is referred to as the Day of Revolt, which is why these
two terms are used interchangeably in this study.
day” (Sharp 2009: 21). The only people who were able to live in prosperity during the
years of Mubarak’s reign were military generals and high-ranked officers. “In Egypt, it is
an open secret that not all of [the military aid from the United States] was invested in the
military budget” but went in their private pockets (Armbruster 2011: 36). In addition to
living in poverty, about 30 percent of all Egyptians are illiterate, due to an underdevel-
oped education system (Armbruster 2011: 26). According to the 2004 Arab Human De-
velopment Report, submissiveness is drummed into the students’ brains. “There are
hardly any possibilities for free thinking and criticism. All they do is learning things by
heart” (ibid.). One reason for the violence and attacks of policemen is the so-called
Emergency Law, which “was imposed during the 1967 Arab-Israeli War and […] has
been continuously extended, every three years since 1981” (ESIS 2011). The law ex-
tends police powers, suspends constitutional rights and legalizes censorship (ibid.).
Among other reasons, it was due to this law that “[i]nternational human rights organiza-
tions have […] documented instances of torture, arbitrary detainment, and discrimination
against women, homosexuals and Coptic Christians in Egypt” numerous times (Sharp
2009: 24). The Emergency Law is not an exception to the rule, as independent analysts
claimed the Egyptian legal system to be “a labyrinth of codes and procedures that can be
twisted to the state’s benefit when necessary” (Sharp 2009: 9). Moreover, Transparency
International, a global organization fighting corruption, rates Egypt as being one of the
most corrupt countries of the Middle East. On the global list, the country is ranked 115th
out of 180 (Armbruster 2011: 25). Last but not least, the Parliamentary elections of 2010,
resulting in the National Democratic Party (NDP, Mubarak’s party) winning 95 percent
of the seats, also triggered “feelings of frustration and disillusionment amongst the pub-
lic” (ESIS 2011). It further proves observations that “the Mubarak government has tight-
ened its grip on power and cracked down on domestic opponents” over the course of the
last years (Sharp 2009: 9).
For these reasons, hundreds of thousands of Egyptians took to the streets on Jan-
uary 25, in Cairo, Alexandria and other cities all over Egypt (Armbruster 2011: 17). The
demonstrations “came out in far greater numbers than initially envisioned” (Sharp
2011a: 2). The protesters were not only young and Internet-savvy Egyptians, but people
of all age groups and professions – students who know they have no real future and will
probably never get a well-paid job; engineers who have to work as part-time taxi drivers
in order to earn enough money to get their families through the day; newspaper editors
and reporters wanting to write and publish what they really and truly think; and simply
Egyptians who are sick of bribing civil servants to get a certificate of any kind (Arm-
bruster 2011: 25). “They all have one goal: Mubarak and his system have to go. Other-
wise things cannot get better” (ibid: 18). The demonstrations on January 25 remained
largely peaceful, however, “The official Middle East News Agency [reported] three pro-
testers killed and 49 wounded in Cairo and Suez” (ESIS 2011).
Despite the fact that Hosni Mubarak tried to stop the oppositional groups by
greatly suspending Internet and text-messaging services (ibid.), demonstrations contin-
ued over the next few days and on Friday, January 28, the peacefulness of the demon-
strations came to an end when “hundreds of thousands of protesters throughout the coun-
try clashed with riot police and central security forces” (Sharp 2011a: 2). In Cairo alone,
an estimated 100,000 people filled the streets and Tahrir Square (ibid.). The Ministry of
the Interior had given the security forces the order to get rid of the protesters at whatever
cost. The police threw grenades of tear gas and beat the demonstrators with rubber clubs.
There were even some snipers placed around Tahrir Square. “The demonstrators re-
sponded by throwing bricks and forming barricades, setting police cars and police sta-
tions on fire” (Armbruster 2011: 20). They plundered the National Democratic Party’s
headquarters (ESIS 2011), never stepping aside from their initial demand – “We won’t
leave Tahrir Square until Mubarak has stepped back” (Armbruster 2011: 21). While
Egyptian officials reported only three deaths that day, Human Rights Watch announced
26 lives lost (Armbruster 2011: 21-23). Finally, the police, overwhelmed by the protest-
ers’ resistance, surrendered and the army was deployed, warmly embraced by the pro-
testers (Sharp 2011a: 3). After the chaos caused by the police, the army tried to secure
the city again, placing tanks all around Tahrir Square (Armbruster 2011: 22). However,
some “speculated that the withdrawal of police from urban areas was a deliberate policy
by the government, a scare tactic intended to sow chaos in order to remind Egyptians
that a strongman like Mubarak is needed (Sharp 2011a: 3). A hint to that accusation is
provided by the fact that on January 28, thousands of prison inmates all over Egypt were
freed by armed forces breaking into the prisons, setting free “Islamist extremists, many
violent criminals, rapists and men sentenced for terrorism” (Armbruster 2011: 22). Free-
ing criminals to destabilize the protesters seems to be a very common tactic for dictators
like Mubarak, as Saddam Hussein had done it before in 2002 and Muammar Gaddafi
was about to do the same later in February 2011 (ibid: 23).
The next day, January 29, President Mubarak gave a speech, announcing he
would dissolve his government and a little later he appointed Ahmed Suleiman, Chief of
Intelligence, as his Vice President (ESIS 2011). He was the first vice president ever ap-
pointed during the reign of Mubarak (Sharp 2011a: 3). However, the demonstrators were
not satisfied, for they did not want small concessions but a whole new system in their
country. Indeed, “[t]he moves failed to calm public anger, and the weekend of January
29-30 witnessed looting, protests and near-total chaos” (ibid.). However, the army stated
on January 31 that “it would not use force against Egyptians” and peaceful demonstra-
tions (Sharp 2011a: 5). One day earlier, the international community had stepped in, with
Britain, France and Germany issuing a joint statement, urging Mubarak to allow the
“democratic transformation process” to happen, starting by allowing free elections (ESIS
2011). Also, “US President Barack Obama [told] Mubarak he should take concrete steps
to honor his commitments to reform” (ibid.).
“On Tuesday, February 1, an estimated quarter of a million protesters turned out

in downtown Cairo for the 8th consecutive day of public protest against the rule of Hosni
Mubarak” (Sharp 2011a: 6). Many of them were practically living on Tahrir Square by
now – setting up toilets, tents, and even keeping the square clean with brooms and by
picking up garbage (Armbruster 2011: 31). However, the most striking thing is probably
how the army acted around the protesters. “Children are playing on the tanks surround-
ing Tahrir Square, demonstrators and soldiers are sharing their drinking water. One
could think the army has switched sides” describes Jörg Armbruster (2011: 32). When
Hosni Mubarak delivered a speech later that day, promising he would not run for the
next presidential term in the upcoming September elections, the crowd was enraged
(ESIS 2011), chanting “leave” and “we are not leaving” (Sharp 2011a: 6). The next day,
massive clashes took place again on Tahrir Square between Mubarak supporters and
demonstrators. Jeremy M. Sharp describes it the following,
“In what appeared to be an orchestrated show of force, a huge crowd of pro-

Mubarak strongmen, some riding on horses and camels, stormed Tahrir Square
[…] and attacked anti-government protesters with metal rods, stones and sticks.
A storm of stones rained down on both sides of the battle, as participants tore
metal sheeting from nearby construction sites and shops for protection” (2011a:
7).
Horses and camels are political symbols for Mubarak’s National Democratic Party
(Armbruster 2011: 34), enriching the assumption that many of the pro-Mubarak fighters
were government-instructed and paid men willing to use violence on the one hand and
also some of the freed prison inmates on the other. Some others accused them of being
policemen in plain clothes (cf. Sharp 2011a: 7). The Egyptian government heavily de-
nied these charges (ESIS 2011). The army surrounding Tahrir Square did not do any-
thing but watch the fights. “Supposedly they had the order of just waiting and watching
how the battle was unfolding” (Armbruster 2011: 34). Finally, on February 3, the fights
were over and the pro-Mubarak fighters stepped back. It was not until then that the mili-
tary helped the protesters on Tahrir Square. “Apparently, the army did switch sides when
it became clear that Mubarak’s recruited thugs would not be able to remove the demon-
strators (ibid.: 36). The same day, Vice President Omar Suleiman tried to talk to the pro-
testers, promising them Mubarak’s son wouldn’t candidate in the upcoming elections
either (Sharp 2011a: 8). Hosni Mubarak himself “claimed that if he resigned now, chaos
would ensue” (ibid.). However, that did not satisfy the protesters, they were determined
to stay, at whatever cost. The next day, Human Rights Watch reported three hundred
people dead since the beginning of the protests on January 25 (Armbruster 2011: 35).
In the following days, “[t]he regime [crumbled] under the pressure” (ESIS 2011).
On February 6, state television reported that the government had decided to abolish the
Emergency Law and “banks and law courts, closed since January 27, [opened]” (ibid.).
However, protesters were still not content. Record numbers of people flooded Tahrir
Square after “Wael Ghonim, a young Google executive who had been detained by au-
thorities for 12 days” was released on February 9 (Sharp 2011a: 10). He, who revealed
being the founder of the facebook group “We are all Khaled Said”, gave moving speech-
es on television, renewing the people’s anger on Tahrir Square (ibid.).
On February 10, a military general stepped onto Tahrir Square, telling the de-
monstrators that all of their demands would be fulfilled, President Mubarak would hold a
speech later that day to tell them everything (Armbruster 2011: 44). However, when
Mubarak announced that even though he would hand over his powers to Vice President
Suleiman, he would not step back and leave Egypt until he was “buried in the ground”
(Sharp 2011a: 10), “catcalls started going off on Tahrir Square” (Armbruster 2011: 45).
The demonstrators were disappointed, angry and mad. Nevertheless, they remained calm
and peaceful, claiming, “we will stay” (ibid.). They would have to wait one more day.
On February 11, the demonstrators were marching towards the President’s Palace in
Heliopolis, some of them were blocking the “headquarters of lies”, as they titled the
Egyptian state television (ESIS 2011), when they learned Mubarak had left his palace
with a helicopter (Armbruster 2011: 52). Around 5 p.m. “Vice President Suleiman an-
nounced that President Mubarak had resigned and the Supreme/Higher Council of the
Egyptian Armed Forces had taken control of the country” (Sharp 2011a: 11).
After setting a historical basis in this chapter, the following section will now turn
to the four newspapers considered in this analysis.
1.2. The papers
The papers chosen for the analysis are The Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, the
San Francisco Chronicle and The Washington Times. In the following section, the four
papers are briefly presented and it is explained why they were considered suitable for the
analysis at hand.
The Wall Street Journal is a nationally published daily newspaper (excluding

Sundays), printed in New York City. It is considered “one of the world’s most respected
print newspaper[s]…” (Franklin 2008: 4) and has a circulation of 2,177,7915, which
makes it the biggest newspaper in the United States by circulation. However, one has to
take into account that this figure includes about 414,000 paid subscribers for The Wall
Street Journal’s electronic edition, “including its Web site and other systems like the
Kindle” (Plambeck 2010). This is particularly important because “most newspapers do
not charge for their Web sites and their online readership is not included in the circula-
tion bureau’s calculation” (ibid.). The Wall Street Journal is famous for its extensive
economy and stock market section, also reflected by the paper’s name. It “primarily co-
vers US and international business, and financial news and issues” (Shepherd 2011:
114). This study will therefore also investigate whether this focus on economic topics
somehow influenced the coverage of the revolution in Egypt. The paper is considered
very influential both internationally and nationally and has won 33 Pulitzer Prizes to this
date (ibid.).
In a 2005 report on media bias in the United States published in The Quarterly Journal
of Economics, The Wall Street Journal was found to be the most liberal of all news out-
lets that were measured in the study. Groseclose and Milyo developed a special score
ranking from 0 to 100 with 0 being conservative and 100 being liberal. The Wall Street
Journal reached a score of 85.1 (Groseclose, Milyo 2005: 1212). However, the two re-
searchers seem surprised by these findings, noting that
“this estimate […] refers only to the news of The Wall Street Journal; we omitted
all data that came from its editorial page. If we included data from the editorial
page, surely it would appear more conservative” (ibid).
In addition to that, the study was carried out before Rupert Murdoch was able to “win
control” (Franklin 2008: 4) over the Journal. Rupert Murdoch is widely known for other
media outlets presenting a very conservative view, such as Fox News (cf. Groseclose,
5
Unless not marked differently, all circulation numbers are taken from the Audit Bureau of Circula-
tion 2011.
Milyo 2005) and is often accused of using his media outlets for distributing a conserva-
tive worldview. However, when confronted with the concerns regarding The Wall Street
Journal, Murdoch responded in an editorial published on August 1, 2007, that he “in-
tended to maintain the values and integrity of the Journal” (Shepherd 2011: 122). How-
ever, it will be interesting to see if the content analyzed in this study hints at a more lib-
eral or conservative slant and if so, which genres particularly reflect a certain bias. It will
also be of interest to investigate if the editorial pages convey a different picture than the
news stories, as suggested by the study carried out by Groseclose and Milyo.
The New York Times, with a circulation of 916,911 on weekdays, is on rank three
of the US’s biggest newspapers. It has, however, the highest circulation on Sundays,
selling more than 1.3 million copies. The paper’s nickname is “The Gray Lady” due to
its longstanding position in the news business and because “it was one of the last news-
papers to adopt color photography” (Shepherd 2011: 87). The paper was founded in
1851 and is therefore the oldest newspaper of all four used in this analysis. The New
York Times received 104 Pulitzer Prizes, outdoing any other news organization (ibid.).
The paper is said to have a political bias in their news reporting towards the Democratic
Party. One example for that is the Bay of Pigs invasion in the 1960s, where the Times
helped to downplay the disastrous story in cooperation with the Kennedy administration
(cf. Schudson 1978: 172). The sentiment of the New York Times reporting in favor of the
Democrats has survived until to today. Most scholars see this proven in politically
charged times and not only in the editorial section but also in the news stories that are
supposed to be politically objective. Neil Weinberg, for instance, editorial writer at
Forbes, notes in an article in 2010 that
“perhaps it’s pure coincidence that a little over a week before readers go
to the polls to decide the fate of Congress, the liberal [New York] Times
[leads] with stories that just happen to paint [its] owners’ political foes as
buying the election”
Additionally, the study on media bias by Groseclose and Milyo also places the New York
Times near the liberal end of the scale, giving it a score of 73.7 (2005: 1211). In 2004, a
piece by the newspaper’s public editor at the time, Daniel Okrent, was published, in
which he stated that the New York Times had a liberal bias when it comes to certain so-
cial issues like same-sex marriages. “He claimed that this bias reflected the paper’s cos-
mopolitanism, which arose naturally from its roots as a hometown paper of New York
City” (Shepherd 2011: 95).
10
San Francisco Chronicle’s weekday circulation is 235,350, putting the paper on the list
of the 25 biggest newspapers in the United States. Around the west coast, the paper is
seen as an icon of the region. Even though it is primarily focused on the San Francisco
Bay Area, it is “distributed throughout Northern and Central California” and also main-
tains a bureau in Washington, DC (Shepherd 2011: 99-101). However, due to the media
crisis of the last years, the Chronicle’s readers have been increasingly disappointed by
the loss of quality, which makes them reach for the New York Times more and more of-
ten (Lindner, Knop 2009). Just like the Times, the San Francisco Chronicle is considered
politically liberal and is the largest newspaper in Northern California (ibid.). Its nick-
name is therefore “The Voice of the West” (Shepherd 2011: 99). It was very important
that the analysis investigated at least one newspaper which is not based in the east of the
United States in order to add some regional balance to the analysis.
The Washington Times’ circulation is very hard to determine since “[t]he paper
stopped reporting to the Audit Bureau of Circulation in 2008” (Shapira 2010). At that
point, the paper’s weekday circulation was 86,710. Times executives claim The Wash-
ington Times has a current circulation of 42,000 copies (ibid.). However, one can say
that The Washington Times is the smallest paper by circulation considered in this study.
Additionally, it is also the youngest one. The paper was founded by Reverend Sun
Myung Moon of the Unification Church in 1982 and is often said to be “a mouthpiece
for Moon’s religious movement […] or, at best, a public relations outlet for conservative
values and the Republican Party” (Ahrens 2002). In Groseclose and Milyo’s 2005 report
on media bias in the United States, The Washington Times was ranked the most con-
servative news outlet out of 20 (cf. 2005: 15).
After presenting the newspapers, it becomes obvious that they vary in size, region, and,
probably most importantly, in political affinities. Now it is interesting to find out if these
differences influence the way of reporting of the papers. This study attempts to find out
whether the political slant the papers are often accused of having is reflected in the cov-
erage on the Egyptian revolution of 2011. The following section provides an overview of
how the material used for this analysis was researched and organized and how the analy-
sis is pursued in the further course of the study.
11
1.3 Methodology
Before starting to analyze the different articles, it was important to define the time frame
to be covered in this study. As mentioned above, the revolution is technically rooted in
June 2010 and cannot really be declared completed until the parliamentary elections in
November have taken place and the country starts over with a new government (cf.
Sharp 2011b: 3). This study, however, is only concerned with the time frame from Janu-
ary 25, the “Day of Revolt” to February 11, the “Friday of Departure” (cf. Armbruster
2011). As this study deals with print media, implying a time period of one day for the
paper to be printed and published, the time frame chosen and analyzed is January 26 to
February 12 20116.
The next step was to search for articles published within this time frame in the
four papers chosen for the research. Using the search database LexisNexis, all articles in
the four papers that include the word ‘Egypt’ were selected. The search was kept very
vague in order to not miss any article that might be important for the matter. After that,
the total of 615 findings were categorized according to their genres and content – this
time the selection was conducted very strictly, so that only the articles really concerned
with the revolution itself and therefore suitable for the analysis would remain.
The three genres picked for analysis are the editorial, the news story and the let-
ter to the editor7. However, due to the fact that every newspaper has a different structure
and might therefore place the news stories on different pages and in different sections of
the paper, only the news stories appearing on the papers’ front pages during the 18-day
time period were considered in the analysis, meaning all articles carrying an ‘A1’ in the
section line. Some newspapers in the United States tend to start articles on one page and
end them on another, maybe not even continuous page. Regardless of whether the com-
plete article was printed on the front page or whether it just started on the first page and
continued somewhere else in the paper, it was still included in the analysis. This in par-
ticular holds true for the articles taken from the New York Times since the articles printed
on A1 are all very long and it seems unlikely that two, or sometimes three, complete
stories would fit on one page as a whole. Front page stories are supposed to attract the
6
Since all articles (including all editorials, news stories and letters to the editor) analyzed were pub-
lished in the year 2011, the parenthetical citation gives the exact date of publication for reasons of
better visibility.
7
A short overview of the three genres and a more thorough explanation as to why they were picked
for the analysis can be found in chapter 2.
12
reader’s attention and were considered newsworthy, relevant and appealing enough by
the editors to represent the paper when it is on display.
Concerning the following analysis, many different factors have to be taken into
account. One of them is the principle of selectivity. According to Timothy E. Cook, se-
lectivity in news reporting can lead to bias when “day in and day out, certain kinds of
political actors, political stories and political issues become more covered and more fa-
vorably reported than others” (1997: 87). In the present case, one can assume that the
central topic – the Egyptian revolution – will be the same in every article. However,
there are many different angles from which one can look at the revolution and it is exam-
ined whether some angles are preferred by specific newspapers. Following Cook’s
thoughts on selectivity, it will also be interesting to see if some newspapers tend to al-
ways quote the same experts for their articles. If so, this might be an indication of one-
sided reporting.
Another aspect to consider is the choice of words. Peter Linden states that “just
the sound of a word alone can create and influence a reader’s feelings and can set free
associations in the reader’s mind” (2008: 21). This choice of words also plays a signifi-
cant role in the headline of a news story. Especially since this analysis deals with front
page articles, the headline is not only supposed to sum up the story and grab the reader’s
attention for the article, but it should also “attract the reader to the paper” (Reah 2002:
13). Some headlines, according to Allan Bell, also “focus on a secondary event or a de-
tail” (1991: 189). In these cases, the headline puts another emphasis on the news story
and can “re-weigh the news values” (ibid).
It is necessary to note, however, that not all aspects are thoroughly analyzed in
every genre and every article. It has to be considered, for example, that the headline is
probably not as important in the letter section as in the news articles and that the source
of information plays a minor role in the editorials than in the news stories. The newspa-
pers are looked at en bloc in each article and the analysis will show whether some kind
of ‘red thread’ is recognizable in the different genres.
13
2. Analysis
In the following, the four newspapers picked for this study are analyzed based on their
articles on the 2011 revolution in Egypt. Since the research is concerned with three dif-
ferent genres, first of all, the genres are briefly presented to give an overview of what is
characteristic for the genres and why they are an important part of newspaper business
and newspaper reporting. Previous studies and claims by scholars are presented and tak-
en into account when analyzing the articles.
2.1. Editorial
Karin Wahl-Jorgensen stresses the importance of the editorial as follows:
“[t]he editorial and op-ed […] pages are central to a newspaper’s identity. They
are the only place in the paper where journalists are authorized to express opin-
ion, often guided by the political leanings of the newspaper.” (2008: 70)
The main difference between a commentary and the editorial is that in a commentary the
single personality of the author with all his or her feelings and thoughts on a special mat-
ter is represented. In an editorial, on the other hand, the writer basically represents the
newspaper’s opinion on the matter. The journalist, as an individual, is not of high im-
portance, which is also why editorials do not usually give the author’s name. Of course,
one can never fully detach from one’s own thoughts but in the editorial, the writer is not
representing himself as a person but serves as the newspaper’s voice. This is also the
reason why the editorial was chosen over the commentary in this analysis at hand. The
aim of the study is to compare four different newspapers and not the journalists em-
ployed at these papers. Therefore, the editorial is the much more suitable choice.
Although there is this very important distinction to be made, an editorial is an

opinion piece and follows the same guidelines and difficulties as any other commentary.
Any form of opinion journalism is based on the factor of perspective. If one wants to
comment on an event like the Egyptian revolution, one must not be too personally in-
volved in the matter. Peter Linden states that, only the journalist (or in this case, the pa-
per) “with a healthy level of detachment, can draw conclusions, form connections to
other possible outcomes and judge and evaluate about what is going on” (2008: 80).
However, besides keeping this personal distance, the writer has to be emotionally
touched or moved by the events he or she is commenting on, because “without any emo-
tion, there’s no motivation to comment on something” (ibid.). Opinion pieces also help
to include the reader in the discussion and therefore the editorial writers have to be clear
14
about what they want to express. The sharper the theses are, the more likely the reader is
to get engaged in the discussion and to at least think about what his or her personal opin-
ion on the matter might be (cf. Linden 2010: 5). Taking all these points into account, one
can see that it can be very tricky for editorial staff writers to find the right balance in
their editorials. This chapter now turns to the four papers in question to see how they
overcame this difficult task.
2.1.1. The Wall Street Journal
The Wall Street Journal contributes seven editorials to this analysis. The first one was
published January 28 and the last one February 12, 2011. Each of them except one (The
Clash February 3) 8 either carries “Egypt” or “Mubarak” in the headline so that the read-
er knows immediately what the editorial is dealing with.
The texts are very factual, giving a lot of background information on what is
going on and how these uprisings have developed over time. Since the editorial writers
had a lot of space for their pieces (the editorials are an average of 750 words long, mak-
ing them the longest editorials of all in this analysis), they added a lot of information to
the texts one would rather expect to find in a regular news story. Of course this creates a
positive effect because the readers feel informed and are not just confronted with an
opinion coming out of nowhere. A well-prepared argumentation also increases the relia-
bility and the seriousness of a newspaper. Most of the editorials even start with the news
hook, confronting the reader with the newest developments on which the editorials are
based.
All editorials except one (The Clash February 3) also mention the Obama admin-
istration and the dilemma the US government is facing in Egypt. Most of them do not
seem to approve of the Obama administration, proving true to the theory that The Wall
Street Journal’s editorials convey a more conservative opinion, supporting the Republi-
can Party. In the first editorial, published on January 28, it is said that
“perhaps we would not be faced with this choice in Egypt if we had done more
than nothing during Mr. Mubarak’s 30-year tenure to support efforts toward a re-
al civil society and functioning political system there” (Egypt’s Choice).
8
All editorials are cited by giving the first two to four words of the editorial's headline. According to
accurate MLA style (7th ed.), the shortened headline would have to be put in quotation marks. Howev-
er, due to reasons of better visibility, the quotation marks in the parentheses are left out.
15
This seems to be a side blow to former President Bush’s Freedom Agenda, planning on
‘exporting’ democracy to the Middle East. The article suggests that, if politicians had
stuck to this initiative, the dilemma would not be there right now. Another editorial ques-
tions the rightfulness of “foreign policy realism” (Egypt and the Realists February 2) –
realism being a form of political course Barack Obama is known to follow. In “Hamas,
the Brotherhood and Egypt”, the writer also defends President Bush against his critics,
saying that “it was with good reason that President Bush sought to promote liberal-
democratic openings throughout the Arab world” (February 4) and that February 12 is
also “a day to note that George W. Bush was the President who broke with the foreign
policy establishment and declared that Arabs deserve political freedom” (Egypt After
Mubarak February 12). Mentioning some events and speeches of the past (“We recall
that in 2005 President Bush…” (Egypt’s Choice January 28), “No less than President
George W. Bush put it this way in 2003” (Egypt and the Realist February 2) makes peo-
ple think back to the times of the Bush administration. Since only positive speeches by
Bush are mentioned, people are supposed to be reminded of the former President in a
positive fashion.
Overall, it seems that The Wall Street Journal refrains from criticizing the
Obama administration directly but rather does it by praising the efforts and achievements
by the Bush administration completed earlier. Thereby, the criticism is not as direct and
blunt but comes along in a more subtle, smooth and friendly way.
2.1.2. New York Times
During the time period investigated in this analysis, the New York Times published six
editorials on the Egyptian revolution. The first one appeared on January 27 and the last
one was published February 12. The average length of the editorials is 550 words.
The editorials are, overall, very factual. Descriptions of what is going on in the
streets are only found in one editorial, talking about “men armed with clubs, rocks,
knives and firebombs” (Egypt’s Agonies February 4). Other than that, the words written
only paint a very vague picture of the revolution, leaving a lot of room for the reader to
imagine what the demonstrations and fights might look like. The editorials also provide a
lot of background information, be it about Tunisia’s Jasmine Revolution and Egypt’s
poverty problems (Mr. Mubarak January 27), the effects on the rest of the Middle East
(Washington and Mr. Mubarak January 29), Egypt’s vice president Omar Suleiman, to
whom a whole editorial is devoted (Mr. Suleiman February 9), and last but not least on
16
the US-Egyptian relation, including the annual amount of military aid given to Egypt by
the United States. This is mentioned in four out of six editorials and reflects a very pro-
fessional way of reporting, even if it occurs in an editorial. The New York Times enables
every reader to understand the background stories of what is happening and why. The
reader is able to grab the most important pieces of information even though he or she
might not even read the Times every day.
In all six editorials, both the United States and the effects of the Egyptian revolu-
tion are mentioned and the latter is, by part, also explained in the texts. This is probably
done so that the American readership can understand why the revolution in Egypt is of
importance for the United States as well and why they should therefore also care about
it. The New York Times also makes it very clear that the United States have a huge influ-
ence on what is happening in Egypt. In the editorial on February 2, talking about Mubar-
ak’s announcement not to run for re-election again, it is said that “Mr. Mubarak spoke
after President Obama’s special envoy urged him not to run again” (Beyond Mubarak).
In the very first editorial, there is a slight side blow against former President
George W. Bush and his policies. It is said that “President Obama was right to move
beyond his predecessor’s ‘democracy’ agenda built around military intervention and
empty rhetoric” (Mr. Mubarak January 27). Other examples can be found, showing that
the New York Times is supportive of the Obama administration, e.g. “President Obama is
right to take pains to avoid […]” (Beyond Mubarak February 2), “President Obama said
the right thing […]” (Mr Suleiman’s February 9). The Times also defends the administra-
tion against critics by using the stylistic device of argument anticipation in the editorial
of February 2. It states that “[c]ritics here and in Egypt have complained […]. Balancing
national security concerns against moral responsibilities is never pretty” (Beyond Mu-
barak). The paper is acting like the administration’s advocate in a way. The New York
Times seems to want to tell their readers to be patient with the government and to be
patient with decisions because the Obama administration is going through a hard time.
Still, in the editorial of February 9, it is stated that the United States and the European
Union “badly miscalculated when they endorsed Egypt’s vice president, Omar Suleiman,
to lead the transition to democracy” (Mr. Suleiman’s). Thus, although the general feeling
is that the New York Times supports the Obama administration and its way of handling
the crisis, it is still well able to express criticism when holding a different opinion.
The author(s) use(s) a large amount of personal pronouns in the editorials to cre-
ate a kind of community spirit and to show that the New York Times is part of the Ameri-
17
can people, that it is not above but among all the other US-citizens. This direct inclusion
can be found in every single editorial (“we won’t try to game […]” (Washington and Mr.
Mubarak January 29), “we are skeptical […]” (Beyond Mubarak February 2), “we fear
Mr. Mubarak is planning […]” (Egypt’s Agonies February 4)). In some, it is even the
first word of the text; “We sympathize with the […]” (Mr. Mubarak January 27), “We
are a long way from knowing […]” (Mr. Suleiman’s February 9). Another aspect stands
out in the category of word choice. Many times, the writers choose to use the term “Lib-
eration Square” instead of “Tahrir Square” (Beyond Mubarak February 2), (Mr. Sulei-
man’s February 9) or even use both terms in one sentence (Egypt’s Agonies February 4).
One could interpret this as a sign set by the paper, signaling that the New York Times
believes in the liberation of the Egyptians. The word triggers positive thoughts about the
revolution and suggests freedom is actually located in this square in Cairo.
Apart from that very emotional and direct way of presenting things, the New
York Times manages to stay rational and does not only cheer full of joy when Mubarak
finally steps down, but also raises some skepticism. It is stated that they “felt anxiety
about the news that a council of military leaders will now run the country” (Egypt’s
Moment February 12). That, again, shows that the New York Times editorial board wants
to express that they are well able to see the bigger picture and do not just see the good or
the bad side in things happening.
2.1.3. San Francisco Chronicle
During the 18-day revolution in Egypt, the San Francisco Chronicle published six edito-
rials dealing with the subject. The first one appeared on Thursday, January 27, two days
after the Day of Revolt, the last one on Saturday, February 12. The average number of
words is about 340.
The general sentiments that come across in all editorials are a huge admiration
for the protesters in Egypt and an aversion towards Mubarak and his way of handling the
demonstrations. The protests are described by using phrases such as “a week of inspired
street protests” (A step closer February 2), “the events in Egypt are nothing short of mi-
raculous” (Egypt’s 18-day revolution February 12) and they are even called “the epitome
of a people’s revolution” (Mubarak – he’s not listening February 11). On the other hand,
there is Hosni Mubarak and his “harsh, autocratic government” (Egyptian unrest January
27) taking “barbaric attempt[s]” (A war against February 5) against the protesters. On
February 11, the Chronicle calls Mubarak “delusional” (Mubarak – he’s not listening)
and states further that “he’s not Egypt. Egypt belongs to the people in the streets […]”
18
(ibid.). Moreover, the speech he held that day was described as “rambling and insulting”
(ibid.). All these adjectives and phrases help to convey a negative picture of Hosni Mu-
barak. He seems to be an unlikable and unteachably stubborn old man, unable to let go
of power, even though “[t]he best thing for Mubarak to do is to step down, right now”
(Mubarak – he’s not listening February 11).
Another important aspect to note is the role of the United States in the Egyptian
revolution. As mentioned before, policymakers in the US were facing a dilemma during
the 18-day protests because they were unsure as to how to react towards Mubarak, who
had been a longtime ally of the United States, especially because it remains unclear what
or who will follow Mubarak after his resignation. However, the San Francisco Chronicle
represents a clear standpoint in this matter, stating that “instead of helping Mubarak,
Washington has to find a way to help the Egyptian people” (Egyptian unrest January 27)
in the very first editorial on that matter. Throughout the editorials, the Chronicle sticks to
this opinion, stating on February 12 that “as for the United States, we must encourage
this transition [to democracy]” (Egypt’s 18-day revolution). Additionally, the only US
government official quoted is Barack Obama (February 2 and February 12), affirming
his support for the Egyptian people as follows: “’We hear your voices,’ President Obama
said in a Tuesday message to the demonstrators. The transition ‘must begin now’” (A
step closer February 2). No other US official is quoted, creating the impression that the
US is very sure about having to support the demonstrators and not Hosni Mubarak. The
San Francisco Chronicle makes it perfectly clear that it does not understand how one
cannot fully support the protesters by stating that “out of cynical caution, most Western
officials refused to fully embrace the protesters” (Egypt’s 18-day revolution February
12).
Brian McNair, Professor of Journalism and Communication, states that editorials

can sometimes be
“presented as the ‘voice of the reader’, and directed at policy-makers. Alterna-

tively, they may be constructed as the calm, authoritative voice of the editor,
viewing the political scene from a detached distance.” (qtd in Wahl-Jorgensen
2008: 73)
In the case of the San Francisco Chronicle it becomes clear very quickly that the editori-
al is supposed to serve as the ‘voice of the reader’. In the February 5 editorial, dealing
with the attacks on Western and Arabic journalists during the revolution, it says that
“[i]t’s tough to feel neutral about a regime while watching your own countrymen be at-
tacked by it” (A war against). Moreover, the paper appeals to the readers’ patriotism,
19
stating that “[t]he Egyptians were inspired by our own traditions of freedom and democ-
racy. The least we can do is to help them make their dreams real.” (Egypt’s 18-day revo-
lution February 12). In this example, the author uses words associated with the United
States, like ‘freedom’, ‘democracy’, ‘dream’ (referring to the principle of the American
Dream) so that the reader is reminded of his or her heritage and the responsibility that
comes with it – to be somehow obliged to support democracy wherever possible. In all
these examples, there is no detached distance recognizable whatsoever. Interestingly
enough, the personal touch to the editorial seems to increase over the days. In the first
editorial it is referred to the United States by saying “The United States can’t afford
[…]” and “Washington has to find a way […]” (Egyptian unrest January 27). In the last
one the tone has changed to, “As for the United States, we must […]” and “[t]he least we
can do” (Egypt’s 18-day revolution February 12).
2.1.4. The Washington Times
Six editorials dealing with the Egyptian revolution were published by The Washington
Times between February 1 and February 11, 2011. They are all relatively lengthy, having
an average word count of approximately 580.
The editorials all deal with the Obama administration in a way and discuss the
dangers and possibilities of the US government’s reaction to the revolution. Throughout
all editorials, the Obama administration is described by use of many negative adjectives
and phrases. President Obama and his government are called “feckless” (Obama chan-
neling February 1), they seek “to ramp up” tension (Egypt’s blood February 3), they are
provoking a new war in the Middle East (The next Mideast war February 7) and, by their
behavior, they are helping the “America-hating Muslim Brotherhood” (Egypt’s blood
February 3) to come to power in Egypt, which would mean “a radical Islamic takeover”
(What’s next February 11).
Curiously, if one takes a closer look at all editorials, it turns out that they all use the
same arguments in each and every piece. They all mention the Muslim Brotherhood and
call them “America-hating” (The next Mideast war February 7) and relate them to the
words “jihad” (What’s next February 11) and “al Quaeda No. 2” (Obama channeling
February 1). All these words trigger very negative associations, especially in American
minds, since the United States particularly fear religious extremism due to the 9/11 at-
tacks. Two articles even use the same quote by a brotherhood leader who is stated to
have said that the Egyptians should “be prepared for a war against Israel” (Egypt’s blood
20
February 3). The topics of Israel and Iran come up in almost all of the editorials as well.
It is stated that “[t]he worst-case scenario in Egypt is an Iran redux” (The Egyptians hate
us February 2) and in the first editorial on February 1, it is explained in great detail what
happened in Iran in 1979 and why this was bad for the United States (Obama channeling
February 1).
While the Muslim Brotherhood is presented in a very negative fashion, Hosni

Mubarak is called “a 30-year partner of the United States, a man who has helped keep
peace in the region and been a durable ally in the war on terrorism” (Egypt’s blood Feb-
ruary 3) who always “lived up to expectations” (Obama proves February 8). The fact that
Mubarak supposedly reigned his country like a dictator and the reasons why people are
protesting in Egypt are completely omitted in the argumentation.
It is interesting to note which sources are cited in the editorials to underline the
paper’s point. First of all there is the former Vice President Dick Cheney, a Republican.
He is quoted, claiming that Mubarak has been “a reliable U.S. ally” over the years and
that the US government should not let him down (Obama proves February 8). Cheney is
still a known personality in the political sphere and therefore serves as an “authoritative
source” for the paper (Bell 1991: 191). In addition to that, Chris Matthews, an MSNBC
journalist is quoted in the same editorial. He also stresses that Mubarak must be support-
ed because “[y]ou treat your friends a certain way” (Obama proves February 8). In rela-
tion to that it is relevant to note that Chris Matthews is said to be politically conservative
even though he works for MSNBC, a news outlet which is believed to be very liberal
(S.A. 2005). The other people quoted in the editorials are government officials from the
Obama administration, whose statements are, most of the time, accompanied by an edito-
rial disagreeing or degrading comment, e.g. “This is nonsense” (The next Mideast war
February 7). This is also part of another measure used by the editorial writers, namely
the one of argument anticipation. The writer weakens the opposite side’s arguments by
listing them and then outdoing them with his or her own argument. This is done numer-
ous times in the editorials present, for instance in the February 2 editorial, when it is
stated that “[t]he burst of enthusiasm that attended Mr. Obama’s outreach effort boosted
favorability slightly to 27 percent, but in 2010 disappointment set in…” (The Egyptians
hate us). Another example can be found in the editorial where it says that “Secretary of
State Hillary Rodham Clinton insisted the United States is ‘not advocating any specific
outcome.’ Some outcomes, however, are much worse than others” (The next Mideast
war February 7). The same quote by Clinton is used again in another editorial where it
says “[…] ‘not advocating any specific outcome,’ which left the door open for all out-
21
comes, including a radical Islamic takeover” (What’s next February 11). By also men-
tioning the opposition party’s arguments, the editorial writers prove they are well aware
of the fact that there are other opinions. This makes them more reliable and believable
when presenting their own arguments.
Also the headlines used in the editorials were not chosen by chance but carry a
meaning themselves. Oftentimes, “headlines will have certain ‘trigger’ or ‘key’ words to
signify ‘who’ or ‘what’ the story is about” (Rafferty 2008: 226) and this is exactly what
the headlines of The Washington Times’ editorials are doing. “The Egyptians hate us”
(February 2), “Egypt’s blood on Obama’s hands?” (February 3), “The next Mideast war”
(February 7) – all these headlines carry words with a negative connotation and therefore
let the readers of the paper know right away that trouble has to be associated with the
Egyptian revolution. Also the headline “Obama proves Osama was right” (February 8)
triggers very negative associations. It is suggested that Osama (bin Laden), who was
considered a very dangerous foe to the United States has done something right in the
past. This is practically a contradiction in itself since an enemy can never be ‘right’ with
anything; at least in the eye of the opponent.
2.1.5. Conclusion
First of all, it is striking that all four papers, regardless of their circulation, almost all
published the same number of editorials during the given time period. This signals that
all four newspapers rated the topic as being relevant enough to report about and to voice
their opinions on it. Additionally, it shows that the newspapers were all aware of the fact
that the uprisings might trigger discussion and different opinions among the US popula-
tion and therefore wanted to be part of and also influence this discussion.
The closer look at the 25 different editorials published in the four papers shows that all
papers seem to follow a certain direction they want the reader to think in. The San Fran-
cisco Chronicle makes it clear they are in favor of the revolution and democracy devel-
opment and against Mubarak and they very much urge Obama and the rest of the United
States to only support the demonstrators. The New York Times also approves of the
Obama administration’s way of handling the situation. However, the Times’ editors pre-
sent that opinion in a more subtle way, by also stating that they are aware of the fact that
the situation is a very tricky one for the US government and that they have to handle the
revolution and everything attached to it with care. Both papers discuss the importance of
a stable democracy in Egypt after Mubarak’s resign. Still, neither the New York Times
22
nor the San Francisco Chronicle present a malicious campaign against the Muslim
Brotherhood like The Washington Times is in its editorials.
The Washington Times’ editorials all aim at triggering fear of the Muslim Broth-
erhood and how bad it would be for the United States if they gained power after Mubar-
ak. Other possibilities are not even mentioned in one of the editorials, even though other
political groups are beginning to form in order to be present at the Parliamentary elec-
tions in November 2011 (cf. Sharp 2011b: 3). The pieces all present a very one-sided
view on things in Egypt, not looking for reasons for the revolution but just seeing how
much worse everything is going to be for the United States if Mubarak leaves office. By
contrast, the New York Times even states that “it is easy to understand why Egyptians are
fed up” (Mr. Mubarak January 27).
By explaining the scenarios in a very detailed and factual way, The Washington
Times manages to really make its readers believe that the revolution is very dangerous
for the United States. The fact that the editorial writers do not use any personal pronouns
in their pieces, makes them appear like the scholar wagging his finger at the policy mak-
ers and explaining to the public why they should not trust the government in this matter.
The Washington Times lines with a Republican point of view in all the editorials.
The claim made by Groseclose and Milyo in their 2005 report on media bias was
that “few would disagree that The Wall Street Journal editorials are conservative […]”
(2005: 1199). This holds true for the editorials investigated in this analysis. However, the
paper presents this way of thinking in a much more subtle way than The Washington
Times. While The Washington Times keeps stressing how dangerous the Muslim Broth-
erhood would be for the United States if Mubarak resigned, The Wall Street Journal
seems to have understood that a regime change in Egypt was unstoppable. Therefore, the
editorial writers took this democratic change as a fact and attributed the credit for that
change to the Bush administration. The Journal refrained from triggering fear of the
Brotherhood. In fact, the paper only mentions them in more detail in one editorial (Ha-
mas, the Brotherhood February 4).
23
2.2. News story
“Journalists do not write articles. They write stories. A story has structure, direction,
point, viewpoint” (Bell 1991: 147).
News stories are the very foundation of newspaper reporting. Due to the fact that
print journalists can take their time when writing their pieces, in contrast to Web journal-
ists who always have to think of the ‘be first’ principle, the strength of newspaper stories
is to deliver more accurate, more detailed and more facetted background information
than any other medium. Of course there are also different subgenres when looking at
news stories, like the feature story, which is really giving an insight view from the core
of the event, or the spot news, which just gives the most important facts to the who,
when, where, what, how questions. This distinction is also made when looking at the
different front page articles relevant for this analysis. It is discussed what the author’s
perspective on the topic was when producing the text, since, according to Peter Linden,
this is one of the most important aspects to consider when analyzing news stories (cf.
Linden 2008: 78).
The framework used in the following chapter is provided by Allan Bell in his
book The Language of News Media (1991). Along with other factors, Bell gives an over-
view of the structure of news stories, news values, news sources and actors and roles of
facts and figures in a news story. These factors will be taken into account when looking
at the articles in question. However, Bell is of course not the only scholar whose works
is cited. The choice of words, the style of writing and other aspects relating to the lan-
guage of the text are also taken into consideration. Nevertheless, according to Peter Lin-
den’s definition of a journalistic text, it underlies a current event and is not driven by an
artistic urge, which is why one cannot read it like a literary piece of work (2008: 73).
As in the sections before, it is also important to note that not all aspects can be
taken into account at all times, but that the articles are analyzed based on their most
striking and unique features, since the main aim of this analysis is to find a ‘red thread’
in the way of reporting.
Between January 26 and February 12, 2011, thirteen articles were published on the front
pages of The Wall Street Journal that deal with the revolution in Egypt. The articles have
an average length of 1,500 words and are therefore the longest articles in this analysis.
24
They each give a lot of background information on the happenings. Most of them put
emphasis on one specific aspect after giving an overview of the demonstrations.
Given that The Wall Street Journal is the biggest paper in the United States by
circulation, it is clear they have a large number of staff members both within the US and
abroad. When looking at the articles about the revolution in Egypt, it becomes clear that
there was a group of reporters on the ground there, reporting from the very core of the
happenings. The journalists doing the major part of reporting on the topic were Matt
Bradley, Charles Levinson and Margaret Coker from Cairo. Most of the time, there were
also reporters from Washington contributing to their reports, such as Jonathan Weisman
and Adam Entous. By often giving the information of the journalists’ locations in the
byline, the reader already feels in good hands since first-hand reporting seems more reli-
able and the reporters therefore more competent. Additionally, the Journal also reports
on regions where no reporter was stationed – Suez in this particular case – basing its
information on material coming from news agencies like the Associated Press (cf. Levin-
son, Bradley January 29).
With regard to its sources, The Wall Street Journal seems to be very concerned
about keeping a certain balance. In every article carrying accusations, the other side also
gets the chance to defend itself. Therefore, one finds quotes by “Safwat Al-Sherif, the
secretary general of the NDP” (Bradley, Spindle January 28) and other supporters of
Hosni Mubarak (cf. Levinson, Said et al. February 3) and even if “[t]op Egyptian offi-
cials weren’t available to comment” (Bradley January 26), it is made clear that the re-
porters at least tried to get a statement. Furthermore, it stands out that The Wall Street
Journal reporters seem to heavily rely on political analysts in their reporting. “Analysts
said” (Levinson, Bradley January 29) is a phrase one finds many times in The Wall
Street Journal’s front-page articles. By not giving the organization the analysts work for
(if they are connected with any organization), the Journal avoids being put in a political
corner. However, analysts are often considered a very reliable source, for they evaluate
certain political situations for a living and are therefore considered experts for some peo-
ple. This, again, ensures the Journal readers that they are reading a very serious, reliable,
and trustworthy paper.
One article that stands out is a news analysis that was also published on the front
page (Seib January 29). It came out relatively early, when the protests had just been go-
ing on for three days. This shows that The Wall Street Journal’s editorial staff managed
to understand the relevance and the scope of the revolution in Egypt at an early stage. In
25
this analysis, the author gives a detailed background on the US-Egyptian relation and
therewith explains why the United States has to care after all about what is going on in
the Middle East. Gerald F. Seib lays out four possibilities of what could happen if Mu-
barak was replaced by any other form of leadership. He talks about Mohammed El-
Baradei, Omar Suleiman, the Muslim Brotherhood and the Egyptian army as four alter-
native leaders and explains why it is difficult for the United States to support or fight any
of those alternatives because, in any case, “it outstrips their ability to control it once it
gets rolling”. The analysis is a good way to make it clear to the reader which outcomes
the revolution might have and what this means for the United States. It is really a possi-
bility to explain backgrounds rather than just collecting facts as it is often done in other
news stories. However, even though it is an analysis, the author is careful not to take any
side and to give any advice to the US government.
Another article that is somehow out of line between all the other news stories is a
piece on Wael Ghonim, the Google executive who was put in government detention
shortly after the protests began and was not released until February 9 (Coker, Malas et al.
February 7). The article is basically a profile on Ghonim, explaining his role in the upris-
ings. This is a news angle no other newspaper considered in this analysis paid as much
attention to as The Wall Street Journal did.
Stylistically, it stands out that The Wall Street Journal writers tend to use rather
long sentences than short ones, sometimes up to 45 words per sentence (cf. Coker, Lev-
inson et al. February 2). According to Peter Linden this indicates a very unagitated way
of reporting (2008: 97), distanced and mainly factual. Additionally, the structure of The
Wall Street Journal’s articles is what Allan Bell would call the typical structure of a nar-
rative. In the first sentences, the so-called ‘abstract’, the “central action and main point”
(1991: 148) is presented and the reader gets to know what is newsworthy about this arti-
cle. This is also referred to as the ‘lead’ in the journalism business. This feature is how
one can distinguish the Journal’s usual news stories from the background pieces without
a completely new newshook. This is demonstrated by the following example: On Febru-
ary 2, almost at ‘half-time’ of the revolution so-to-speak, The Wall Street Journal pub-
lished an article entitled “How Cairo, U.S. were blindsided by revolution”. In that article
Charles Levinson, Margaret Coker and Jay Solomon provide a chronology of the events
and always add the United States’ point of view to them. The article starts off by saying
“Two months before Egypt exploded in popular rage, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton
met Ahmed Aboul Gheit, Egypt’s foreign minister, in her seventh-floor offices in Wash-
ington” (Levinson et al. Februray 2). Technically, this article does not start with an ab-
26
stract and ‘news’ in the narrow sense but with the orientation (cf. Bell 1991: 148), setting
the scene and answering the who, when, where questions. By also putting articles of that
manner on the front page, The Wall Street Journal manages to keep its reporting fresh
and original even for continuous readers of the paper.
The most extensive front-page reporting on the revolution in Egypt was done by the New
York Times. 35 articles were published on the A1 page between January 26 and February
12. The topic appeared on the front page at least once every day, sometimes twice or
three times and on February 12 even four times. Even though the paper published so
many articles on the matter, the pieces are relatively long, consisting of an average of
1,300 words. This huge amount of material on the Egyptian revolution shows the high
relevance the New York Times attributed to the topic.
The very first article already carries “U.S. Foreign Policy” in the headline (Land-
ler January 26), immediately emphasizing the relevance for the American readers of the
paper. The article also starts by giving the location ‘WASHINGTON’ so it is clear that
the piece is written with a US focus. However, the other front-page article published on
January 26 is only concerned with the happenings in Egypt and does not even mention
the US government: it carries the location marker ‘CAIRO’ (Fahim, El-Nagger). Another
fact that stands out is the variety of authors contributing to the coverage. The New York
Times has a strong workforce to pull from all over the United States and abroad and this
becomes clear when looking at the reporting on Egypt. However, one name one stumbles
upon many times when reading the A1 articles is ‘David D. Kirkpatrick’. Interestingly,
Kirkpatrick was located in Tunis and contributed to an article by Mark Landler when
reporting started on January 26. However, since events started to unfold in Egypt, the
reporter moved to Cairo from where he continued working in order to be closer to the
events (Kirkpatrick January 29). The fact that already four other journalists were sta-
tioned in Cairo at that point (Kareem Fahim, Mona El-Naggar, Liam Stack and Dawlat
Magdy), shows the importance the New York Times attributed to the revolution. This
proves the point made by Souad Mekhennet, who stated in medium magazin that the
United States reacted fast in relocating many of their Middle East reporters to Egypt
when the revolution was still in its fledgling stages (cf. Milz 2011: 20). However, the
Times’ network is large enough to still have reporters stationed in Beirut (cf. Shadid,
Bakri et al. January 28) or Jerusalem (cf Bronner January 31), giving background cover-
27
age on how the revolution in the most populous country of the Middle East is affecting
the rest of the region.
One can easily recognize that the Times tends to focus on one specific aspect in
each article instead of mentioning all aspects in one large article, like The Wall Street
Journal does. Therefore, one finds an article concentrating on the work and the role of
Al Jazeera during the revolution (Worth, Kirkpatrick January 28), another one on the
future of Israel in view of the uprisings (Bronner January 31), a piece profiling the pro-
testers, including their ‘leader’ Mohamed ElBaradei (Kirkpatrick, El-Naggar January
31), and a very thorough picture of Hosni Mubarak and his political career (Slackman
February 12). Therefore, any reader can decide for him or herself which aspect is of in-
terest to him or her when picking up the paper. However, it has to be noted that all arti-
cles are understandable also for non-continuous readers of the paper.
According to a study carried out by Sigal, almost 50 percent of the stories that
appear on the front pages of the New York Times originate from information coming
from US officials (qt in Bell 1991: 191). This is also reflected in the front-page articles
looked at in this analysis, at least in the ones carrying the location marker WASHING-
TON. Most of the quotes come from White House officials, including President Obama,
Hillary Clinton and White House spokesman Robert Gibbs, or experts working at Mid-
dle East oriented organizations (cf Landler January 29). The articles marked CAIRO do
not feature as many quotes. Most of them are provided by protesters. This reveals that
the New York Times distinguishes between articles providing an ‘inside’ and an ‘outside’
view on the situation. The outside view, namely the US perspective, is used to provide
assessments of the revolution by US officials and the inside view serves to present the
protesters’ situation in a more emotional and direct way. Nevertheless, this does not im-
ply that the ‘inside’ articles do not provide any factual background.
Just like the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times also published one news analysis
on the revolution on the front page. However, the one in the Times was issued much later
than the one in the Journal, namely on February 12, the day after Mubarak’s resignation.
In the article, Anthony Shadid provides a resume of the 18-day revolution. He writes
about how everything started on January 25, how uncertain the order following Mubarak
was at that moment and which effects the revolution might have on the Arab world as a
whole. Interestingly, he does not quote any US officials but only Arab protagonists.
Most of them are protesters and other supporters of opposition groups, but Shadid also
quotes people from Saudi Arabia, Tunisia or Syria. They express their joy (“The sun will
28
rise on a more beautiful Egypt”), their responsibility, which they are aware of (“This is a
historic moment in the Arab world”) and their fear of what might come now (“I’m dead
scared”). The article is very factual but lives through the peoples’ quotes, presenting both
the positive and the negative sides of the revolution. The United States, however, are not
mentioned once. It is a gripping change of viewpoint, only letting the Arabs speak. How-
ever, a certain amount of admiration is recognizable in the text, especially since it ends
with a song, saying “Egypt, you rose up, and your son succeeded and he waved your flag
high”.
Technically the San Francisco Chronicle should to be taken out of this part of the analy-
sis, since there were no articles published on the paper’s front page between January 26
and February 12, 2011 that dealt with the Egyptian revolution. However, in order to not
have to ignore the paper completely, this analysis considers four articles out of the six
available. These four articles were published either in the ‘Metro’ or the ‘Main News’
section of the Chronicle. They are all relatively short, the longest consisting of only 745
words. One of them only deals with the revolution indirectly since it mainly discusses
that Al Jazeera can be watched via a San Francisco Internet link (Garofoli February 4).
What is striking at first sight of the articles is that they all already carry the local
touch in their headlines, either including “S.F.” (Colliver, February 12), (Kane February
6), (Garofoli February 4) or “Nothern Californians” (Nelson, Tucker February 2). This is
what Allan Bell would categorize as the evaluation: “Evaluation is the means by which
the significance of a story is established” (Bell 1991: 151). The headlines already show
the reader that this story is of importance to him or her because by belonging to the read-
ership of the San Francisco Chronicle, he or she is very likely to come from the San
Francisco Bay Area and can therefore relate to the people told of in the stories.
There is no political figure quoted in any of the articles, be it an US official or an

Egyptian spokesperson. All articles concentrate very strongly on personal comments and
feelings of ‘normal’ US citizens who have some kind of connection to Egypt and the
events there. This is not very common practice, according to Bell (1991). Considering
that news actors can be “divided into the Knowns and Unknowns [and] Knowns appear
four times as often as Unknowns” (ibid: 194), the San Francisco Chronicle puts a lot of
emphasis on the Unknowns. This is probably due to the fact that the paper wants to re-
29
tain the closeness to its readers and uses the Unknowns to convey ‘real’ feelings from
‘real’ people who are somewhat on the same stage as the reader.
Concerning the structure of the news stories, three of the four articles start off
with the so-called ‘nut graph’, answering the ‘W-questions’ in the very first sentence.
The article on the Californians who got out of Egypt just before the protests started is
basically a compilation of three short and superficial profiles. It is a very personal piece
that gives very few facts (Nelson, Tucker February 2). In this story, the nut graph ap-
pears much later, in the third and fourth paragraph, explaining that the people portrayed
in this piece are only a handful of those “travelers who fled the country in the last few
days”. The style of writing is very comparable to the one in the yellow press and appears
to be what could be called ‘sensational journalism’. Sentences like “[a] sleepless week
filled with fear” let it seem that Dawn Lukas, one of the three protagonists, was really in
danger before leaving Egypt.
Two further articles tackle the exact same topic, namely two rallies in San Fran-
cisco to support the protesters in Egypt. One was reported about on February 6 (Kane)
and the other one on February 12 (Colliver). The latter describes how “a small but spirit-
ed crowd” celebrated Mubarak’s downfall. All the people quoted in the article are filled
with joy about the protesters’ victory and none raise any skepticism about what might
follow Mubarak. There are a lot of direct quotes used in this article, adding an emotional
touch to it. “It’s unbelievable”, “I cannot tell you how beautiful it is”, “We are in awe of
the young men and women of Egypt” (Colliver February 12) – all these quotes serve a
purpose. Direct quotes are “supposed to be brief, pithy, colorful, to add something which
a version in reported speech would not” (Bell 1991: 209). They add personality to the
story and help collect and convey all the emotions coming from the people. However,
they are not very factual since they all just express personal opinion. The other article on
the rally states how the San Francisco protesters were already supporting the Egyptian
protesters halfway through the revolution (February 6) and how they were worried Pres-
ident Obama “would let cynical politics and a desire for immediate stability outweigh the
passion of the millions calling for democracy in Egypt” (Kane February 6). This is the
only time that the Obama administration is even mentioned in all of these articles. It is
striking that the only time the US government is brought up, it is mentioned in connec-
tion with people urging it to support the democracy movement in Egypt. This is what
stays in the readers’ minds when thinking about the Obama administration in the context
of the Egyptian revolution: it should support democracy in Egypt, and therefore support
30
the protesters. Other issues and the dilemma the US government is facing are not brought
up at all in the San Francisco Chronicle news stories.
The smallest paper looked at in this analysis published eleven front-page articles on the
revolution in Egypt between January 31 and February 11, 2011. They include an average
number of 1060 words each and most of them were written by Heather Murdock. Her
articles are oftentimes contributed to by Ashish Kumar Sen in Washington, so it says at
the end of the articles.
First of all, it stands out that The Washington Times puts a lot of information in
the headlines of the articles. They consist of two parts, two elliptic sentences that com-
plete and round up each other. Using this ‘telegram’ style is supposed to attract the read-
er to the story, since he or she directly sees its keywords, like “Brotherhood” (Sen Janu-
ary 31), “Obama” (Rowland February 1), or, of course, “Egypt” (e.g. Scarborough Feb-
ruary 1). According to Allan Bell, it is common that rhetoric devices are used in head-
lines (1991: 189) and this also holds true for The Washington Times’ headlines, especial-
ly concerning alliterations (e.g. “Carefully calls ...” (Rowland February 1), “Protesters
push …” (Murdock February 4), “…ill and injured in Cairo” (Murdock February 8)).
The majority of people quoted in The Washington Times’ articles are demonstra-
tors on Tahrir Square. In an article published on February 9 for instance, seven people
are quoted and six of them are anti-Mubarak demonstrators (Murdock). Additionally,
many of the articles end with a direct quote, mostly from protesters, e.g. “’I have to go
now,’ Mr Shafeey said […] ‘To set up my own checkpoint” (Murdock February 3), “’He
doesn’t care about my security,’ she said. ‘He only cares about his security’” (Mudrock
February 4), “’I’m not going to hell for orders’” (Murdock February 7) or “’He gave us
hope that he was going to leave,’ he said. ‘He wants to start a civil war’” (Murdock Feb-
ruary 11). Ending an article with a quote creates a certain suspense in the article. They
convey the feeling of very determined protesters, create a dramatic ending and can may-
be even serve as a cliffhanger because the reader is left with that very personal statement
and probably wants to know how the ‘story’ goes on. To put it in Allan Bell’s words,
“news stories are not rounded off. They finish in mid-air” (1991: 154). The quotes by the
protesters give the reporting an emotional touch and make the story more comprehensi-
ble for the readers than reported speech would. However, since Heather Murdock is the
31
journalist mainly working on the topic, it remains unclear whether this way of reporting
was intended by the paper’s editors or whether this is just Murdock’s personal style of
writing. .
There are a few articles published within the time period that stand out because
they approach the topic differently. On February 8, Heather Murdock wrote a relatively
short (841 words) background piece on makeshift clinics in Cairo (Murdock February 8).
It is a very descriptive piece of writing, creating a lot of images by explaining in detail
what the environment looks like (“shuttered door”, “red walls”). It really puts the focus
on another side of the protests – the one that is not hopeful and glorious but the “bloody
toll” of the demonstrations. Murdock manages to deliver the picture of a very brutal Cai-
ro, resulting in thousands of people being treated in makeshift clinics. Overall, a very
negative vibe about the revolution is conveyed by this article.
The second article that does not necessarily report about news and new develop-
ments in Egypt is called “Leaderless protests spawns crowded field for president” (Sen
February 7) and is written by Ashish Kumar Sen, supposedly located in Washington,
considering the fact that his other contributions on the topic were made from the US
capital as well. In his article, Sen shortly characterizes the Egyptian key players hoping
to succeed Mubarak. Well-known figures as ElBaradei and Omar Suleiman are men-
tioned as well as Amr Moussa (“one-time foreign minister in the Mubarak-government”)
or Mohammed Badie, the head of the Muslim Brotherhood. However, it stands out that
Omar Suleiman is described in a very positive fashion, while Amr Moussa, who is fa-
vored by many Egyptians, is mentioned to have been “highly critical of U.S. support for
Israel” in the past.
Last but not least there is an article entitled “Key military, intelligence assets im-
periled in Egypt” (Scarborough February 1). This piece is what one could call a ‘scenario
article’. The writer describes what would happen if “Egypt falls into the hands of radical
Islamists”, the Muslim Brotherhood in this case. It is very one-sided because it portraits
the Brotherhood as a “shadowy” fraternity, calling “for the destruction of Israel” and
basically hating America to the bone. The article outlines how “US military and intelli-
gence agencies would lose vital air, land and sea assets” if the Muslim Brotherhood
came to power. Rowan Scarborough paints the picture of a dystopia in this text, trigger-
ing fear of the Brotherhood. Regarding its structure, this article is to some extent compa-
rable to the news analysis found in The Wall Street Journal (see section 2.2.1.). Howev-
er, the main difference is that the Journal’s news analysis gives various alternatives of
32
what might follow the Mubarak regime, while this article in the Times concentrates on
the one scenario that is most feared by the United States.
2.2.5. Conclusion
When looking at the four different papers, the coverage in the San Francisco Chronicle
stands out as the most incomplete. First of all, in order to include the newspaper in the
analysis, one has to take all pages of the paper into account, since no article on the matter
was published on the front page. In total, only six articles were published by the Chroni-
cle within the 18 day period. However, these articles still do not give an overview of
what was happening in Egypt, but take up side stories like the fact that “San Francisco’s
Link TV carries Al Jazeera reports on Egypt” (Garofoli, February 4) or add a local touch
to it by reporting on “Tales of lucky few Northern Californians who escaped” (Nelson,
Tucker February 2). If one had only read the San Francisco Chronicle during the 18
days of the revolution, one would have had to read the editorials in order to be able to
understand the complicated situation there and what implications that might have for the
United States.
One might argue that the Chronicle is to be considered more of a local newspa-
per with limited possibilities for reporting. Still, even if its circulation and number of
staff members is relatively small compared to the other papers, there are still ways to
increase the intensity of reporting. The Washington Times, for instance, is even smaller
and managed to produce more extensive reporting, even if they had to hire a freelancer
to do it. Additionally, there is always the possibility of using wire services. If it is impos-
sible or simply too expensive for a newspaper to get reporters on the ground in Egypt,
news agencies like Associated Press or Reuters offer numerous background reports for
newspapers to use and reprint. Even a large paper like The Wall Street Journal used an
article published by Associated Press about the revolution in Egypt (cf. Associated Press
January 31). However, since this article was not printed on the front page of the paper, it
was not considered in this analysis.
It is possibly this paper’s way of reporting to look at a story from a local angle.
According to Bree Shepherd this is also “the trend of other American newspapers, devot-
ing increasing attention to local and regional news”, especially pursued by “other Bay
Area newspapers” (2011: 101). In recent years, The Washington Post has dedicated it-
self to turn into a largely local paper again, keeping a focus on the DC area, since they
33
feel it is the best way to compete with the Internet-driven news market nowadays, ac-
cording to Doug Jel and David Pery from the Post’s editorial staff (Personal interview
February 24, 2010).
Michael Schudson was one of the first to point out the fact that newspapers –
“especially those most prestigious, most powerful, and with most resources to
devote to news gathering – have sought autonomy from official views and pro-
moted […] more investigative reporting or ‘news analysis’, more investigative or
‘enterprise’ journalism, and more tolerance for new varieties of feature writing”
(1978: 163).
Even though his remarks were made more than 30 years ago, one has to take into consid-
eration that, as Peter Linden (2010) confirms, newspapers are nowadays mostly read
because of their insight analytical reporting. The huge number of correspondents en-
gaged in the reporting on the revolution at both The Wall Street Journal and the New
York Times shows that these two papers definitely have a lot of resources “to devote to
news gathering” (ibid.) and they also used them to deliver the kind of background report-
ing Schudson is referring to in his book. These two papers also started with front-page
reporting on the very first day of the revolution and ended on February 12, the last day
included in this analysis. This reveals that these two papers stuck to front-page reporting
from the beginning until the very end. The New York Times even kept the topic on the
front page every single day of the revolution.
There were also some differences in tone and style. Whereas The Wall Street Journal
kept a professional distance and quoted mainly political analysts, The Washington Times
focused on conveying the feelings of the protesters. They provided background infor-
mation as well but the Times stories came across as being rather emotional. The New
York Times provided both perspectives but separated them into two different articles
most of the time.
The articles in the New York Times are shorter than the ones in The Wall Street
Journal; however, the Times had many more news stories on their front page than all the
other papers. It seems that The Wall Street Journal expects its readers to be able to stay
focused throughout longer articles covering multiple aspects while the New York Times
tries to keep them shorter and covers the different angles in individual articles. It is
striking, though, that The Wall Street Journal seems to strictly keep its business articles
from the front page and concentrate on political issues.
34
However, there are also similarities between the newspapers. In nearly all news stories
except for the ones in the San Francisco Chronicle, President Obama was quoted at least
once. The reason for that is simply that “[i]n the United States, the president is both ul-
timate news actor and news source” (Bell 1991: 194). Overall, even though there are
some differences in reporting between the papers, they all made an effort to not let their
political bias – if present – shine through their reporting. Most of them showed both
sides of the story, The Wall Street Journal even quoted pro-Mubarak Egyptians and
members of the NDP. One can conclude, however, that the protester’s side was laid out
in more detail. This is probably due to the fact that it was much easier for reporters in
Cairo to get voices from protesters than from the anti-Mubarak protesters since these
people also wanted to be reported on to get their message sent around the globe by re-
porters.
2.3. Letter to the Editor

Letters to the editor are highly important for newspapers since they can help to promote
the paper and improve its circulation. The reason for this is the fact that the letter writers
want every one of their friends to see they were published in the paper and urge them to
read it (cf. Richardson 2008: 58). This tactic also seems to work with the readers. Read-
ership surveys have proven the letter section to be among the most popular sections of
the paper, with readership quotes as high as about fifty percent (Wahl-Jorgensen 2002:
69). The Guardian, a newspaper in the U.K. with a circulation of 241,287 per issue
(ABC 2011), receives about 300 letters every day, according to letter editor Ian Mayes
(2003) – on a regular day, that is. These numbers drastically increase when controversial
political events are on the paper’s agenda. When people learned about the invasion of
Iraq in 2003, the number of letters doubled during the first week (ibid.). One can clearly
see that it is important to the readers to state their opinions – not only do people want to
share their view of the world on the Internet via social media and commentary functions
under websites; they also want to communicate with other readers and editors of the
‘classical’ news medium, the newspaper.
In contrast to the other two genres analyzed in this study, the papers’ staff cannot
influence what is written in the letter, which words are used and, most importantly, who
writes the text in the first place. However, the paper can influence one very decisive fac-
tor: which letters are actually published and which ones are not. Karin Wahl-Jorgensen
(2002) suggests four criteria according to which editors of the letter section select the
35
letters published in the paper. One is the rule of relevance, suggesting that only those
letters are likely to be published that take up an issue that is “already placed firmly on
the agenda by the paper” (Wahl-Jorgensen 2002: 73). Theoretically, readers should be
able to introduce their own topics to the agenda, but usually they “will invariably fail”
(ibid.). The second and third factors are the rules of entertainment and brevity. Entertain-
ing letters have crisp formulations, sharp theses and add spice to the letters page, which
then actually helps the paper, because “[n]ewspapers can turn on readers by offering
more sparkly, entertaining […] letters sections” (Wahl-Jorgensen 2002: 74). Concerning
the brevity, according to Wahl-Jorgensen, the majority of papers even imposes a 300-
word limit, so that more people can state their opinion in one issue (ibid: 75). The last
rule is, in Wahl-Jorgensen’s opinion, “the most slippery one” (ibid: 76) and is called the
rule of authority. It suggests that editors tend to prefer contribution from persons of au-
thority, showing “basic competencies” (Wahl-Jorgensen 2002: 77) in their letters. These
criteria are important to consider when analyzing the letters to the editor in the following
section. However, in this particular case the rule of relevance will be left out, since all
letters looked at in this analysis are per se dealing with the topic of the Egyptian revolu-
tion in some way.
Apart from the selection of the letters, it is also interesting to look at the placing
of the letters, if there is more than one letter concerning the same topic on one page. John
Richardson states that the letters are chosen and are then put close to other letters pre-
senting a different opinion “in ways that also reveal the editorial or political position of
the paper” (2008: 67). Additionally, Karin Wahl-Jorgensen notes that it has also become
very important to the letter pages editors to create a certain diversity in their selection of
letters (2002: 77). It will be interesting to see how balanced or how broad the range of
opinions is in the letters published by the different papers and to what extent they meet
the criteria suggested by Wahl-Jorgensen. In summary, one can say that “[l]etters pub-
lished in newspapers suggest a great deal about the paper and its readers” (Richardson
2008: 67).
The biggest newspaper in the United States features seven letters to the editor on the
topic in question. They appeared on February 2, February 8 and February 11 and most of
them refer to specific articles previously published in the Journal. For instance, the let-
ters published on February 8 all relate to the op-ed article “Egypt’s Economic Apartheid”
36
by Hernando de Soto, published February 3 (Price February 8). This reveals that even in
the letters to the editor, The Wall Street Journal keeps up with its reputation of frequent-
ly adding an economic angle to their news coverage and that the paper’s readers seem to
appreciate this special angle since they reply to these economic articles.
The remaining four letters deal more with the political side of the revolution.
Two of them critically discuss the US government’s rhetoric on the whole issue, calling
it “jibberish coming out of the mouths of President Obama and Hillary Clinton” (McIn-
tyre February 2) and claiming that the White House has been sending “mixed messages”
to the Middle East (Graham February 11). The letter by Abraham Irwin names reasons
for the revolution (Irwin February 11) and the last letter reminds those who “have ap-
plauded the promise of liberty” in Egypt to critically think about what might happen
after the revolution, drawing parallels to the French Revolution (Comanor February 11).
Overall, the readers of The Wall Street Journal seem to be rather critical about the US
government responding to the revolution. None of the letters expresses pure joy: at the
most they convey understanding for the reasons why people started revolting in Egypt
(cf. Irwin February 11). It is also striking that no letter was published about the revolu-
tion on Saturday, February 12, even though the Journal is issued on Saturdays.
Interestingly, none of the letter writers chose to write in the first person perspec-
tive, a perspective called “intrusive” by Peter Linden (2008: 51). Using the third person
perspective makes the letter writers more distant and makes the letters easier to integrate
into the other editorial content of a newspaper. The letter writers keep the same distance
as journalists ought to when writing a news article. It makes them appear more serious
and believable because they write as if they are just distributing facts and not their own
opinion. This aligns with the writing style of the other articles found in The Wall Street
Journal. The paper is regarded as a serious and widely acknowledged newspaper for
educated readers and its readers live up to these expectations as well, at least judging by
their letters to the editor.
The “Gray Lady” chose 34 letters to the editor to be published between January 26 and
February 12, 2011 on the revolution in Egypt. It must be kept in mind that, according to
Reader, quoted in Wahl-Jorgensen (2002), the New York Times letter editors publish
approximately six percent of the letters sent to them, or sometimes even less (ibid. :70).
Considering this number, 34 letters appears to be a lot for that relatively narrow time
37
period. The first letter was printed on January 29 and the last one on February 12. On
this date, eight letters were published, making it the day with the most letters on this
topic. However, these letters are also the shortest ones throughout the whole time period,
with the longest being only about 127 words long (Hayward February 12). Here, the rule
of brevity comes in, allowing “for the greatest number of individuals to voice their opin-
ion” (Wahl-Jorgensen 2002: 75). Most of the letters refer to articles previously published
in the New York Times. However, they do not stick to what was written in these articles
and just support or disclaim the theses but use it as a starting point to develop their own
argumentations.
It is very striking that the New York Times also prints letters coming from outside the
United States. By doing so, even though it undermines the claim that editors often have a
“preference for locally generated content” (Wahl-Jorgensen 2002: 74), the paper stresses
its importance, influence and the fact that it has a readership beyond national borders.
The fact that more than half of these letters not coming from within the US are written
by ‘experts’ underlines the influence of the paper even more. Among a letter from India
(Pune February 11), one from London (Hewitt February 1), a contribution from Italy
(Huffaker February 12) and Paris (Akl February 5), there is one letter from Israel, giving
a clear statement in favor of the United States government. The writer says that “Ameri-
can support for Egypt, if anything, has attenuated Mr. Mubarak’s strong-arm tactics” and
states further that other Middle Eastern countries “which are not supported by the United
States, are more repressive than Egypt” (Vradim February 2). This letter is of particular
importance because it states clearly that the Israeli (of course this one letter is not at all
representative but the writer acts like one in that particular case) are fond of the Egypt-
Israel peace treaty and will stand behind the United States no matter what happens to
Egypt after Mubarak.
There are also many ‘experts’’ letters published in the 18-day time period, mean-
ing that below the writer’s name, his or her profession is given. There is one by the sen-
ior editor of Middle East Monitor (Hewitt February 1), one by Ahmad Majidyar, who is
“senior research associate at the American Enterprise Institute” (Majidyar February 4),
another one written by a former employee of the Lebanese Embassy in Washington (Akl
February 5) and one by a law professor who has also published a book (Cohn February
8). This indicates that the rule of authority introduced by Karin Wahl-Jorgensen is, in-
deed, of relevance for letters pages editors, because these experts tend to be more believ-
able for the reader. Giving their job after their name already attributes a certain expertise
38
to them. As Allan Bell puts it, “for the media, a title embodies a person’s claim to news
value” (1991: 190).
What also stands out is that every day there is at least one letter commenting on
US behavior towards the revolution, be it in a critical (e.g. Mangan January 29) or in an
approving way (e.g. Vradim February 31) . By doing that, the New York Times manages
to remind the people reading the letters page why the topic is of relevance to US citizens
as well and not just for the Egyptians. The diversity of comments on US behavior is rela-
tively wide, even though the majority of letters clearly states that “Mr. Obama must
move urgently to cut Mubarak loose […]” (Meyer February 4), since “the only just
stance toward the Egyptians is to push Hosni Mubarak out of power” (Akl February 5)
and the US “should speak clearly for freedom and democracy” (Chen February 8).
However, in two cases the New York Times also published a few letters on the
same page defending two completely contradicting opinions. On February 5, two letters
were printed saying that the Obama administration has been too “hasty in calling for
President Hosni Mubarak’s resignation” (Reifler) and that “[t]housands of demonstrators
do not necessarily represent 80 million Egyptians” (Kean). On the other hand, there is
the letter by Roger Akl, urging the United States to do something against Mubarak and
support the protesters. Something similar can be seen on February 11. The letter sent by
Jennifer Patton expresses pure admiration for the protesters, calling them an “inspira-
tion” and stating that their “energy, determination, creativity and resourcefulness are
breathtaking”. However, Gordon Carmichael’s letter conveys a very different opinion,
saying that the protesters should “get off the streets and allow day-to-day life in Egypt to
return to normal”. By putting these very different letters on one page, the New York
Times creates diversity on the letters page and somehow sticks to the so-called rule of
entertainment by keeping the discussion spicy and interesting for the reader.
The editorials on February 12 exactly reflect the opinion the New York Times al-
so conveys in its numerous editorials. The majority of people are simply happy for the
Egyptians and praise them for their victory over Mubarak, saying things like “congratu-
lations” (Thakar), “Bravo” (Sape), “I applaud them” (Steinberger) and “today we are all
dancing” (Wilson). There is also one letter congratulating Tunisia for the inspirational
Jasmine Revolution (Peters) and one congratulates the US government for “a masterly
job by Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton” (Tobin). One letter, however, is critical of what
might follow the revolution, and reads “we can only hope that the reforms that have been
promised will, in fact, make a difference in the lives of average Egyptians” (Hayward).
39
Therefore, this last collection of letters published on February 12 can somehow be seen
as a representation of the paper’s opinion – of course one has enough reason to cheer and
be happy with and for the Egyptians, but nevertheless one has to think about the conse-
quences and what might follow this revolution.
In the Chronicle, seven letters to the editor were published broaching the issue of the
revolution in Egypt. They were all printed on February 129, one day after Mubarak had
resigned from power. There are two possible explanations for this: Either the Chronicle
did not receive any letters on the topic before February 12 or the paper wanted to wait
until the end of the revolution to ‘reveal’ its readers’ voices. The letters are all very
short, all between 18 (Page) and 81 words (Thomas). It seems that the paper wanted as
many people as possible to be able to state their opinion on the matter and therefore only
picked out the very short letters to publish. What stands out first is the fact that all letters
come from the San Francisco Bay Area. More than half of the letters were written by
people living directly in San Francisco and the other ones are very close to the city as
well. This indicates, again, that the San Francisco Chronicle pursues a more local ap-
proach and focus on things, because if the paper even received letters out of area on the
topic, (which is unknown in this case) they did not select them for publication.
Five out of the seven letters are very uncritical, merely conveying the writers’
sentiments of being “completely overjoyed to know that Hosni Mubarak is gone” (Sala-
ma). Taking into account both the shortness and the uniformity of opinions presented,
one can apply another aspect of the rule of brevity, claiming that “newspapers put the
premium on a diversity of names tagged onto opinions, rather than the opinions them-
selves” (Wahl-Jorgensen 2002: 76). There is only one letter, headlined “Let the joy go
on”, in which the writer wishes the Egyptians can keep up the jubilation (Halvorsen).
The only letter making some critical remarks is the one by Elliot Smith from El Cerrito.
She states that she is also happy for the Egyptians but criticizes the US government for
having supported Mubarak for a long period of time.
The letter by Elliot Smith also proves true the rule of entertainment, as it uses irony as a
measure of conveying the writer’s opinion:
9
Since all letters to the editor in the San Francisco Chronicle were published on February 12, the date
is omitted in the in-text citations and only the last name of the writers is provided in this section.
40
“Aren’t our political leaders happy that the people of Egypt have finally pointed
out to them that Hosni Mubarak was actually, uh, how do I say this, um, a dicta-
tor! And to think we have been giving him $1.3 billion a year in military aid!
Gosh, if we had only known the truth” (Smith).
This is an amusing way of criticizing the US government and therefore sparks and spices
up the discussion and makes reading for the consumer more interesting (cf. Wahl-
Jorgensen 2002: 74). The letters page editors of the Chronicle also chose some other
letters using associative language, which a lot of Americans can probably relate to very
well. Paul Spiegel’s letter is titled “Living in freedom” and refers to “9/11 when Ameri-
cans learned to live in fear”, which will now “be replaced by the call of 2/11, when
Egyptians learned to live in freedom.” First of all, the word ‘freedom’ is a word, that,
especially patriotic US inhabitants like attributing to their country. Additionally, “9/11”
is an expression that appeals to many Americans as well, because it more or less affected
the entire population. Another letter reads as follows: “We got rid of Richard Nixon. The
Egyptians got rid of Hosni Mubarak. All good things are possible” (Page). Most people
probably associate negative things with former Republican President Nixon, thinking of
the Watergate scandal and the liar he was discovered to be through this crisis. The letter
by Jean Halvorsen also addresses the American public, by comparing the cheering in
Egypt to the (baseball) World Series, one of the most important sport events in the Unit-
ed States, after the Super Bowl.
The letters to the editor correspond well with the general sentiment conveyed already in
the paper’s editorials. According to Richardson’s remarks on the placement of letters to
the editor, the very little diversity of opinion suggests that the San Francisco Chronicle
expresses its opinion through the letters. The Chronicle shows huge admiration for the
Egyptian protesters and very little criticism about US behavior in the matter.
During the 18-day time period, The Washington Times published eight letters to the edi-
tor dealing with the Egyptian revolution, all to be found in the issues between February 3
and February 9. Interestingly, they are all written by men and none of them refer to a
specific article published by the Times, but they all argue on the basis of what is going
on in Egypt.
Seven out of six letters deal with the Obama administration’s way of handling
the situation in Egypt. All of those except one reflect an antipathy against Obama. While
41
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
back
back
back
back
back
back
back

Full Ebook of This Is What They Tell Us The Us Printing Press On The 2011 Revolution in Egypt The Us Printing Press On The 2011 Revolution in Egypt 1St Edition Annika Witzel Online PDF All Chapter

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Full Ebook of This Is What They Tell Us The Us Printing Press On The 2011 Revolution in Egypt The Us Printing Press On The 2011 Revolution in Egypt 1St Edition Annika Witzel Online PDF All Chapter

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

This is what they tell US The US

Printing Press on the 2011 Revolution

This Is Why They Hate Us Aaron H. Aceves

US Democracy Promotion after the Cold War Stability

The Fourth Turning Is Here: What the Seasons of History

On Wide Seas The US Navy in the Jacksonian Era 1st

Bioviolence How the Powers That Be Make Us Do What They

Digital Renaissance What Data and Economics Tell Us

Everybody Lies What the Internet Can Tell Us About Who

Give Us This Day Sidney Stewart

This is what they tell US

Anchor Academic Publishing

Dieses Werk ist urheberrechtlich geschützt. Die dadurch begründeten Rechte,

zu betrachten wären und daher von jedermann benutzt werden dürften.

4. Works Cited .................................................................................................... 47

1.1. The 2011 Egyptian revolution

“On Tuesday, February 1, an estimated quarter of a million protesters turned out

“In what appeared to be an orchestrated show of force, a huge crowd of pro-

The Wall Street Journal is a nationally published daily newspaper (excluding

page, surely it would appear more conservative” (ibid).

Karin Wahl-Jorgensen stresses the importance of the editorial as follows:

Although there is this very important distinction to be made, an editorial is an

2.1.1. The Wall Street Journal

2.1.2. New York Times

2.1.3. San Francisco Chronicle

Brian McNair, Professor of Journalism and Communication, states that editorials

“presented as the ‘voice of the reader’, and directed at policy-makers. Alterna-

2.1.4. The Washington Times

While the Muslim Brotherhood is presented in a very negative fashion, Hosni

in the way of reporting.

2.2.1. The Wall Street Journal

2.2.2. New York Times

2.2.3. San Francisco Chronicle

There is no political figure quoted in any of the articles, be it an US official or an

2.2.4. The Washington Times

2.3. Letter to the Editor

‘classical’ news medium, the newspaper.

2.3.1. The Wall Street Journal

2.3.2. New York Times

2.3.3. San Francisco Chronicle

2.3.4. The Washington Times

You might also like