News Analysis- Assignment 4

I have chosen to analyse and determine the differences between three news sources (The Washington Post, The New York Times, and China Daily) on the topic of conflict between the U.S. and China over subsidies for clean-energy companies in China. It is agreed that the Obama Administration is considering investigation into the supposed subsidies and thier possible inconsistancies with the agreements made with the World Trade Organization, but there are many discrepent views of the situation between the different sources.

The Washington Post- U.S. to Launch Inquiry into China's Subsidies for Clean-Energy Firms (by- Howard Schneider)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/15/AR2010101505978_pf.html

1. The Washingtong Post is owned by an education and media company called the Washington Post Company, which is headquartered in Washington D.C. The current executive editor is Marcus Brauchli.

2. This article references as sources: quotes from US Trade Representative- Ron Kirk; quotes from Treasury Secretary- Timothy Geithner; general complaints from the United Steelworkers Union; and beliefs/goals of the 'Obama administration.' It focuses authority on Kirk and Geithner.

3. This article uses key terms and phrases such as: "world leadership in particular industries", "jobs [and economy] of the future", "global trade patterns", "locally made technology products", "violate international standards", and "undermine the ability of [competitors]".

The New York Times- China Escalates Fight with U.S. on Energy Aid (by- Michael Wines & Xiyun Yang)

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/18/business/global/18trade.html?pagewanted=print

1. The New York Times is owned by the New York Times Company (which also owns 18 other newspapers in various regions), and is headquartered in New York City. The company's current chairman is Arthur Ochs Sulzberger Jr.

2. This article references as sources: goals of the White House; quotes from a spokeswoman for the trade representative- Nefeterius McPherson; complaints by the United Steelworkers Union; the US economic stimulus legislation; rules of the World Trade Organization; and (while rebuting the information given in these quotes) quotes from the senior Chinese economic official- Zhang Guobao. It focuses authority on US officials, beliefs by the USWs and the WTO, and McPherson.

3. This article uses key terms and phrases such as: "escalating [disputes]", "election season", "criticism of China", "tensions", "claims", "formal charges against China", "Buy American clauses", "hidden subsidies", "stimulus legislation", "government procurement", "intense pressure", and "manufacturing" versus "research and developement" subsidies.

China Daily- China Rejects US Clean Energy Probe (by- Wan Zhihong)

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2010-10/18/content_11420636.htm

1. The China Daily is a daily newspaper published in The People's Republic of China (in Beijing), as well as in other major cities around China, and around the world. It is written in English, but online, it is also available in Chinese and various other languages (although the information and focuses vary in differing languages- as we learned in class). It is owned by the Communist Party of China (a political party that, therefore, influences the information that is permitted to be published).

2. This article references as sources: head of the National Energy Administration- Zhang Guobao; statements from the US Treasury; statements from the Ministry of Commerce; "US trade officials"; accusations from the United Steelworker's Union; and the deputy director of the Energy Research Institute- Li Jungfeng. It focuses authority on Zhang and Jungfeng.

3. This article uses key terms and phrases such as: "groundless and irresponsible", "hurt the US itself", "diplomatic pressure on China", "regretted that the US government agreed to open investigation", "wrong signal of trade protectionism", "accused", "hopes for further dialogue", "new energy" versus "conventional energy", "energy consumption", and "primary targets in the environment and energy".

Drawing Similarities and Differences In the 3 Sources:

4. These articles clearly show different standpoints on the specified topic. The articles from the Washington Post and New York Times share similar beliefs that China is infact violating the rules of the World Trade Organization, while the China Daily gives an opposing opinion to that of the American-based news articles. The Washington Post takes the claim that China is violating the terms that it agreed to when it joined the WTO, but I find it interesting that the article from the New York Times takes a harsher view of the injustices, yet it does admit that China never infact went through with the finalization of joing the WTO in the first place. This varying report on China's involvement in the WTO could be a serious point of dispute in the claims that they even have to follow the rules of said global trade system. Also, as the Washington Post focuses on the need for jobs in the US (which they claim would be greatly affected by China's ability to supply green-energy technology), the New York Times breaks down the argument made by Zhang that the US uses similar covert subsidies for green-energy as well, and is therefore being hypocritical by prohibiting China's similar subsidies (he claims that the US subsidies are for research and developement of clean-energy, not the manufacturing and distribution of said technologies, which is more acceptable by means of the WTO). I feel that these varying mainpoints can tell one about the sort of audiences either newpaper aims towards, and the specificty versus emotional debates either paper uses.

On the other hand, the article from the China Daily expresses its opinion from the viewpoint of a supporter of China (although I am sure it is 'watered down' for the American/English-reading audiences so as to be less controversial). This article, instead, defends the importance of clean-energy, and the absurdity of America's selfish aims of economic advancement, as opposed to worldly attempts at saving the environment and using intelligable forms of energy. This article also stresses that China has, infact, only exported three wind-power technologies to the US (actually all three are in Minnesota!), which is hardly detremental to the huge US companies of Timken, Exxon Mobile, and Dow Chemical. This news report gives an intriguing opposite look at the intentions and goals of the Chinese attempts at furthering their clean-energy productions. This article uses actual figures of the beneficial elements of clean-energy which both of the other articles I read left out. These numbers help the lagitimacy of the argument stating the importance of clean-energy beyond the selfish ideals of advancing their nation's economy through limiting trade. I believe that the other articles would disregard these facts because they chose to pull at the emotions of the American public who is need of jobs and desires US economic growth (and not as much the environmental benefits of clean-energy).