Lesson Report:
**Title: Comparing State and Independent Media on Global Conflicts; Launching the “Situation� Fact-Mapping Assignment**
This session (Week 2) was devoted primarily to completing student presentations that compare coverage of global events across different news sources (Western vs non‑Western; state‑funded vs private; institutional vs social media). Using those presentations as a springboard, the class began to articulate how source funding, target audience, and editorial choices shape what “facts� we see. In the final segment, the instructor introduced the first major analytical task of the semester: drafting a concise “situation� report for a chosen event, grounded in clearly sourced, as‑primary‑as‑possible factual claims.
—
## Attendance
– **Number of students mentioned absent:** 1 student was initially marked absent during roll (Aydina)
– She arrived shortly thereafter and was marked present.
– No other explicit absences were noted.
—
## Topics Covered (Chronological, with Thematic Activity Labels)
### 1. Opening, Administrative Notes, and Course Orientation
– **Welcome back & new students**
– Instructor welcomed students to Week 2, noted at least one student attending for the first time this semester.
– Seating and basic housekeeping as students arrived and settled.
– **Roll call**
– Instructor read names from the roster and confirmed presence:
– Names explicitly confirmed as present include: Azamat, Bukadas, Mehrona, Aynazik, Albina, Ermin, Altanay, Adam, Zoe, Nino, Elena, Sophie, Beknazar, and later Aydina.
– Noted tendency to forget attendance and desire to formalize it early.
– **Syllabus status**
– For students who joined this week:
– Full syllabus is **under departmental review** and not yet distributed.
– Instructor expects to have it back and uploaded (to eCourse) by the end of the week.
– Students were told that once posted, the syllabus will contain all course structure and requirements.
– **Brief restatement of course purpose**
– This course is oriented around **three core competencies**:
1. **Describing** what is happening in the world in a way that is as neutral and factually accurate as possible.
2. **Diagnosing root causes** of events in a way that is scientific, evidence‑based, and neutral.
3. **Predicting** what is likely to happen next, using scientific reasoning and empirical evidence rather than wishful thinking.
– Last week’s focus: first steps into **description**, using news coverage and the current presentation assignment as a starting tool.
– **Context for today**
– Last class ended partway through student presentations comparing coverage of a chosen world event across different sources.
– Today’s first task: **finish the remaining presentations**, because:
– The information and events students selected will form the **foundational content** for activities for the rest of this week.
– Students’ source choices will be revisited when they practice constructing neutral descriptions and diagnoses.
—
### 2. Completion of Source-Comparison Presentations
*(Note: Names and specific outlets are preserved where discernible; some auto‑transcription noise was ignored where inconsistent with context.)*
#### 2.1. Presentation 1 – Iran/US Tensions: Al Jazeera vs BBC/Real News
– **Student & Issue**
– Student: Azamat (transcribed once as “Asimovâ€�).
– Topic: Tensions between Iran, the US, and Israel, including Iranian threats/response to US policy.
– **Sources used**
– One article from **Al Jazeera**.
– One article that appears to be either **BBC** or **Real News Network** (transcript conflates them, but the contrast was framed as *BBC vs Al Jazeera*).
– Initial tech hiccup: the Al Jazeera link showed “page not foundâ€�; instructor guided student to recover the article via the title.
– **Content focus of each source**
– Student’s characterization:
– **BBC/other Western source**:
– Focuses more on **what happened** and on **social perceptions** of threats (e.g., how society reacts to the US‑Iran tensions).
– **Al Jazeera**:
– Focuses more on **Tehran’s response** to Donald Trump’s threats.
– Emphasis on **Iran’s political and strategic reaction**, not just the events.
– **Student’s evaluative comments**
– Felt that **Al Jazeera**:
– Presented **more information** and appeared **less censored**.
– Was “more comfortable to readâ€� and “more factualâ€� from his perspective.
– Suggested that the BBC might have “more censorship,â€� based on perceived gaps in information that *were* present in Al Jazeera.
– **Instructor’s guidance**
– Encouraged student to:
– Treat early impressions as **hypotheses**, not conclusions.
– Ask: *If Al Jazeera feels “better,â€� what specific information is it including that BBC omits?*
Conversely, *what experiences with BBC lead to perceiving it as biased or censored?*
– Emphasized:
– Every **included** or **omitted** detail is an **editorial choice**.
– Over the semester, students will learn to systematically identify and justify claims of bias rather than rely on broad reputational impressions (“it is known that X is biasedâ€�).
– Encouraged the student to keep those intuitions but be prepared to **defend them using textual evidence** later in the course.
—
#### 2.2. Presentation 2 – Palestine/Israel War: UN News, Egypt Daily News & “Eyes on Palestine�
– **Student & Issue**
– Student: (French-accented; name not clearly captured).
– Topic: The Israel–Palestine conflict, especially Western complicity and on‑the‑ground realities in Gaza/Palestine.
– **Sources used**
1. **UN News** (United Nations news service)
– Language: English.
– Audience: Broad **international audience**.
– Student view: Reliable, institutionally produced information.
2. **Daily News Egypt** (English-language)
– Article emphasizing Western complicity in supporting Israel.
– Cites a former Palestinian Prime Minister.
– Audience: Primarily **domestic Egyptian readership**, but in English—indicating an outreach toward an **international/Anglophone audience** as well.
– Student perception:
– Claims independence.
– Likely **biased** via selection and emphasis, even if factually grounded.
3. **Instagram account “Eyes on Palestine�**
– Self-described as independent and unaffiliated with formal institutions.
– Purpose:
– To show images and stories that “sanctioned media does not show.â€�
– Explicitly supports the **Palestinian cause** and condemns Israel.
– Claims an **educational** role and regularly posts **witness testimonies** and on-the-ground visuals.
– Audience: **International**, with strong advocacy intent.
– **Student’s analysis**
– **UN News**:
– Institutional, normatively neutral tone; high factual credibility in the student’s view.
– **Daily News Egypt**:
– Positions Western governments as **co‑responsible** for atrocities due to military, financial, and diplomatic support to Israel.
– While claiming independence, the outlet:
– Selects and emphasizes aspects of the issue likely to resonate with Egyptian and Arab publics.
– Is “quite reliableâ€� factually, but clearly has a **critical political slant**.
– **Eyes on Palestine**:
– Extremely **close to the subject**: first-hand testimonies and imagery from the conflict zone.
– Dual aims: **inform** and **enrage/persuade**.
– Seen as reliable for **immediate experience** but “obviously biasedâ€� because it openly takes one side.
– **Instructor’s commentary**
– Highlighted the importance of language choice:
– When a non‑English outlet chooses to publish in English, that’s an **editorial decision** revealing a desire to reach **specific global audiences**.
– Flagged UN outlets and NGOs as a **“murky middleâ€�** between state and private actors:
– Will be explored later when discussing how non‑state institutions participate in information ecosystems.
– Affirmed:
– Social media accounts like **Eyes on Palestine** will be **key case studies** when the class turns to **independent and digital media**, particularly regarding images and emotional framing.
—
#### 2.3. Presentation 3 – Darfur/Sudan & Gaza: CNN vs Al Jazeera
– **Student & Issue**
– Student: (female, not clearly named in transcript).
– Two distinct but related pieces:
1. **Conflict in Darfur/Sudan** (humanitarian catastrophe and international inaction).
2. **UN Security Council debates over a Gaza ceasefire**.
– **Sources used**
1. **CNN** (private US-based outlet; not government-funded)
– Article on unfolding violence and humanitarian crisis in **Darfur/Sudan**.
– Content:
– Explains **what is happening** on the ground.
– Raises the question of **what may happen next** and potential further escalation.
– Criticizes the **international community’s inaction**.
– Uses:
– Interviews with people in Sudan/Darfur.
– Information from **NGOs** and **international organizations**, in part because CNN does not have journalists continuously on the ground there.
– Audience: International, but with clear emphasis on **US and Western readership**.
– Student’s evaluation:
– Considered **credible** and largely fact-based.
– Nonetheless includes an element of **advocacy**, not just description—actively criticizes the failure to respond and tries to “open people’s eyes.â€�
2. **Al Jazeera** (Qatari state-funded)
– Article on the **US position at the UN Security Council** regarding a **ceasefire for Gaza** (2024).
– Student’s assessment:
– More **explicitly political** and more clearly **pro‑Palestine**.
– Includes on‑the‑ground reporting from the UN.
– Emphasizes that **other Security Council members and global actors were “fed upâ€� with the United States** blocking ceasefire moves.
– Focuses on **negative impacts** of US decisions and does not significantly present US justifications or nuance.
– Based on verified facts, but presents them in a manner that feels **less balanced** and more interpretive.
– **Comparative observations**
– Student noted:
– Both sources **mix fact and interpretation**.
– Both could claim: “We are just stating facts,â€� but they differ in **which facts** and **which quotes** they highlight.
– Knowing Al Jazeera’s regional and political context, she expects a **stronger pro‑Palestine frame**; likewise, she expects CNN to center Western audiences and Western responsibility.
– **Instructor’s commentary**
– Highlighted that:
– Many of us begin with **reputational knowledge** (“It is known that Al Jazeera is pro‑X, CNN is Yâ€�) instead of concrete text analysis.
– Urged students to:
– Identify **specific, textual details** that indicate side-taking:
– E.g., Al Jazeera’s emphasis on everyone at the UN being outraged at US obstruction.
– Whether CNN mentions that detail or omits it.
– Remember: if a news organization prints or omits a quote, that is **intentional** and part of how bias manifests.
– Introduced the idea (in American context) of the **“blobâ€�**:
– A conceptualization of US **media, academia, government, and the military** as a semi‑closed ecosystem with overlapping personnel and shared assumptions.
– Did **not** fully elaborate this concept yet, but flagged it as something they may return to when analyzing structural bias in US information systems.
—
#### 2.4. Presentation 4 – Greenland & Arctic Politics: BBC/Arctic Today vs CGTN
– **Student & Issue**
– Student: Altanay.
– Topic: **Greenland’s politics and Arctic geopolitics** (US, Denmark, Greenland, and Chinese interest).
– **Sources used**
1. **BBC** (British state-funded) – via a piece also hosted or cross‑posted on **Arctic Today**.
– Likely a **podcast** examining:
– Greenland’s political status (self‑government but foreign policy linked to Denmark).
– Recent elections in Greenland and implications for resource and foreign policy.
– International interest in Greenland and the Arctic.
2. **CGTN (China Global Television Network)** – Chinese state media.
– Coverage of the same or related developments (Greenland’s role, Arctic resources, and US/Chinese strategic interests).
– **Student’s analysis**
– Observed that **CGTN** was **more critical** in tone.
– Suggested it was critical of Western/US narratives about Greenland and Arctic control.
– Noted that the BBC/Arctic Today piece included **analysts and experts** and carried a particular framing of the US as a powerful actor shaping Greenland’s options.
– Struggled, in the moment, to articulate **specific textual details** that revealed the more critical stance in CGTN.
– **Instructor’s guidance**
– Reiterated the key question: *What exactly made you perceive CGTN as more critical?*
– Prompted student to look for:
– Specific language choices (e.g., “pressure,â€� “threat,â€� “imperialâ€� etc.).
– Tone in descriptions of US actions vs. Chinese actions.
– Advised:
– Read/listen to the entire BBC/Arctic Today piece and, if available, a transcript.
– Note specific moments where BBC might implicitly endorse or legitimize certain actors, vs. places where CGTN uses explicitly critical framing.
– Positioned this as **preparation** for deeper, systematic bias analysis later in the semester.
—
#### 2.5. Presentation 5 – India–Pakistan Conflict (Kashmir): Reuters vs The Times of India
– **Student & Issue**
– Student: Albina.
– Topic: **India–Pakistan conflict**, specifically around **Kashmir**.
– **Sources used**
1. **Reuters** (international wire service; private, not state-funded).
– Student initially believed Reuters was **state-funded** and explicitly Western.
– Focus of article:
– Indian military or political statements about a particular incident in the India–Pakistan/Kashmir context.
– No quotations from Pakistani officials.
– Heavy reliance on **Indian official statements**.
– Student’s view:
– Neutral tone overall but slightly tilted toward Indian framing because the **only voices quoted** are Indian.
2. **The Times of India** (major Indian outlet; privately owned, **not** government-owned).
– Similar pattern: quotes primarily **Indian political/military officials**.
– Frames events from India’s perspective without substantial Pakistani counter-voice.
– **Student’s analysis**
– Concluded:
– Reuters article was **largely neutral** but India‑leaning in practice because it only foregrounded Indian official quotes.
– Times of India more explicitly aligned with India’s official narrative.
– Noted that both outlets heavily rely on **official statements** and do not present direct voices from the Pakistani side or local civilians.
– **Instructor’s commentary**
– Corrected misconception:
– **Reuters** and **The Times of India** are **not** state-funded.
– They occupy a **“middle groundâ€�** category: private news organizations that may still be structurally and culturally aligned with particular states or blocs.
– Emphasized:
– Later in the course, the class will interrogate whether being “privateâ€� meaningfully reduces bias.
– Encouraged:
– When articles quote only one side’s officials, students should flag this as **asymmetry in sourcing**:
– Ask whether the outlet even attempts to represent the other side’s view.
– Practical note:
– Recommended that students **remove visible “source=chatgptâ€� tracking tags** from URLs before sharing sources (likened to going to a job interview “with sauce on your faceâ€�).
—
#### 2.6. Presentation 6 – Trump’s Secondary Sanctions on Iran & Greenland Rejection of Trump’s Offer: Guardian/Other vs Al Jazeera
– **Student & Issue**
– Student: likely Aynazik (name not perfectly captured).
– Selected two **different issues**, which complicated direct comparison:
1. **Trump’s threat of secondary sanctions** on countries trading with Iran (including China).
2. **Greenland’s rejection** of Donald Trump’s suggestion that the US might buy or otherwise assume control of Greenland.
– **Sources used**
1. Article (likely **The Guardian**, though transcription is unclear).
– Content:
– Reports Trump threatening to **punish countries trading with Iran**, including major partners like China.
– Argues that these economic threats:
– Risk creating a **global trade war**.
– Could severely damage US–China relations and broader international stability.
– Tone: critical of Trump’s approach and concerned about destabilization.
– Student’s view:
– Guardian is **private**, not state‑funded.
– Considered reliable but with a recognizable editorial position.
2. **Al Jazeera** piece on **Greenland rejecting Trump’s remarks** about taking control of the island.
– Content:
– Greenland government reaffirms it will **never become part of the United States**.
– Notes that Greenland’s security is tied to **NATO** and **European** structures.
– Highlights that several **EU countries** were upset by Trump’s statements and publicly supported Greenland.
– Warns that such actions could **damage US–EU relations**.
– Student’s assessment:
– Interpreted as more oriented toward the **Global South** or non‑Western perspective.
– Believed both sources to be reliable, with Al Jazeera often viewing events through a lens attentive to the Global South and non‑Western interests.
– **Instructor’s guidance**
– Pointed out:
– Because the two articles deal with **different events**, it’s harder to perform a **clean, one-to-one bias comparison**.
– Assigned a refinement task:
– Student should choose **one issue**:
– Either *Trump’s secondary sanctions on Iran/China*, or
– *The Greenland–Trump episode*.
– Then:
– Pair that chosen event with **two contrasting state-funded sources** (Western vs non‑Western).
– Identify **specific textual cues** that suggest a **target audience** (e.g., references to “Global South,â€� assumptions about what the reader already knows, which actors are sympathetically portrayed).
– Reiterated:
– Al Jazeera’s orientation towards certain regional and global audiences is often **inferred through content choices**, and students will need to learn to point to **concrete evidence** in the article, not just their background knowledge of the outlet.
—
#### 2.7. Presentation 7 – Killing of a Palestinian Teenager: BBC, Al Jazeera, and a Deleted Social Media Video
– **Student & Issue**
– Student: Nino.
– Topic: Killing of a **Palestinian teenager** by the Israeli army, and how the event was covered vs. shown on social media.
– **Sources used**
1. **BBC** article
– Did not have the journalist physically on the ground but:
– Used direct access to **international agencies** and **official statements** from the relevant parties.
– Included at least one **injury/aftermath photo** (woman being carried from rubble).
– Aimed for a more **institutional tone**, situating facts in a broader context.
2. **Al Jazeera** piece
– Reported on the **same or a related incident**.
– Student noted:
– Similar reliance on **official statements** and institutional sources.
– Specific details on the event’s circumstances and responses from regional actors.
3. **Social media post** – likely from an on‑the‑ground advocacy account (possibly Eyes on Palestine or similar).
– Showed **direct visual evidence** of the teenager being killed.
– Included the **name of the victim**.
– The post was later **deleted**, likely due to graphic content policy violations.
– Student recalled it was posted approximately **one week prior** to class.
– **Student’s analysis**
– Felt more **personally affected** by the social media video than by BBC or Al Jazeera:
– Described it as “very harshâ€� because it showed the **actual body** and **moment of killing**.
– Having the **victim’s name** and seeing **real-time footage** made the situation much more **concrete** and **humanized**.
– Considered BBC and Al Jazeera to be more **removed** and mediated—powerful but less emotionally intense than witnessing a direct killing on camera.
– **Instructor’s commentary**
– Used this as a case study in **emotional impact vs. informational structure**:
– Traditional outlets:
– Provide context, but often with **anonymized images** – people appear almost like stock photos.
– Social media:
– Often presents **unfiltered and personalized** content.
– Attaches **identities, names, and direct visuals** to events, which:
– Creates stronger emotional impact.
– Can mobilize outrage and sympathy much more effectively.
– Emphasized:
– The growing role of **independent, on-the-ground social media** in shaping public understanding of war and conflict.
– Later in the course, the class will analyze how emotional intensity can be **instrumentalized**—for good (raising awareness) and for manipulation.
—
### 3. Class-Wide Discussion: Media Trust, Funding, and Healthy Source Habits
– **Perceptions of funding and independence**
– Several students admitted they **assumed**:
– CNN was government-funded or quasi‑official US media.
– The Guardian was a British government project.
– Reuters and some other major outlets were state-run.
– Instructor clarified:
– Many such outlets (**CNN, Guardian, Reuters, Times of India**) are **private**, though often structurally connected to political and economic elites.
– This “private but intertwinedâ€� **middle zone** will be examined more thoroughly, including:
– Funding models.
– Ownership structures.
– Cultural and ideological alignments.
– **Class poll on media trust**
– On a scale from 1 to 10:
– **No students** rated their trust in media above **8/10**.
– **Most** clustered in the **5–7** range (moderate but cautious trust).
– A few rated their trust **below 5** (low trust).
– Indicates:
– A **generalized skepticism** toward media organizations.
– Students are already inclined to be critical consumers.
– **Student reflection on impossibility of pure impartiality**
– One student articulated:
– No news organization can be **fully impartial**, given:
– Funding sources.
– Political constraints.
– Target audiences.
– As a response, she:
– Tries to read **multiple outlets** from **different countries**, including **local-language sources**.
– Seeks to assemble a **composite picture** of events.
– **Instructor’s response**
– Affirmed this practice as a **“healthy media dietâ€�**:
– Using multiple, diverse sources to triangulate reality.
– Clarified:
– The aim of the course is **not** to convince students to trust specific outlets (e.g., CNN) but to:
– Understand *why* skepticism has grown.
– Learn to **evaluate sources systematically** based on:
– Evidence.
– Transparency of sourcing.
– Patterns of inclusion/exclusion.
– Noted:
– Widespread **distrust of both media and governments** is not confined to this classroom; it’s a global political reality.
– This has implications for democracy, public policy, and susceptibility to alternative information ecosystems.
—
### 4. Introduction of the “Situation� Assignment: Building Neutral Descriptions from Multi-Sourced Facts
– **Transition in course structure**
– Having completed the source-comparison presentations, the class moves to the **first structured analytical exercise**:
– Drafting a **“situationâ€�** – a concise, factual description of a chosen global event.
– **Purpose of the exercise**
– To practice **accurately describing** what is happening in the world, prior to:
– Diagnosing causes.
– Making predictions.
– To force students to:
– Ground statements in **traceable evidence**.
– Distinguish between:
– **Confirmed facts**.
– **Contested claims**.
– **Interpretations or emotional framings**.
– **Event selection**
– Students are to choose **one global current event**:
– Ideally the same event they used for their presentation.
– If not, any event they are genuinely interested in and can find diverse coverage of.
– Strongly encouraged (but not absolutely required) to include **three kinds of sources**:
1. **Western state-funded outlet** (e.g., BBC, Deutsche Welle, etc.).
2. **Non‑Western state-funded outlet** (e.g., Al Jazeera, CGTN, RT, etc.).
3. **On‑the‑ground / local or social media source**, if available (e.g., local news in the local language, or activist/eyewitness accounts).
– **Structure of the “situationâ€� document**
The instructor indicated it should have **four parts**, although in this session he elaborated in detail on three core components:
1. **Core event and facts list**
– Write a **brief description** of the **core event** (1–2 sentences).
– Example template: “On [date], [actor(s)] did [action] in [location], resulting in [immediate outcomes].â€�
– Then **list as many factual details as possible**, drawing across all your sources.
– Each fact must be:
– As **neutral** and non‑interpretive as possible (no adjectives like “brutal,â€� “cowardlyâ€� unless they appear as quotes).
– **Sourced**:
– Note which outlet reported it.
– More importantly, note **who their information comes from** (official statement, eyewitness, NGO report, etc.).
– **Primary vs secondary source emphasis**:
– Instructor defined a **primary source** as:
– A first-hand account (eyewitness, official who took the action, original government document, etc.).
– A **secondary source** is:
– An interpretation or synthesis (e.g., UN reports summarizing data from multiple inputs, news outlet summarizing a press conference).
– Students are asked to:
– Get **as close to primary** as possible for each fact.
– If a fact come from a secondary source, **note that explicitly**.
2. **Key actors and timeline**
– Create a **bullet-point list** of **key actors**:
– Governments, militaries, organizations, leaders, local groups, etc.
– Construct a **brief timeline** of what happened:
– Ordered sequence of key events (with dates if possible).
– For each bullet:
– Indicate **who did what**.
– Cite **where you got that information** and whom the outlet was quoting.
– Instruction:
– Avoid simply writing “According to BBC…â€� if you can go deeper.
– Instead: “According to BBC, citing the Ukrainian Ministry of Defense, …â€� or “According to Al Jazeera, quoting a local resident in Rafah, …â€�.
– This makes the **chain of information** explicit.
3. **Confirmed vs. contested facts**
– Compare across at least your **two main outlets** (and social media if used):
– Identify **where they agree**; such points go into a **“confirmed factsâ€�** section.
– Identify **where they diverge**:
– Contradictory claims.
– Different casualty numbers.
– Different descriptions of who initiated an action.
– Or subtler differences in what is **included or omitted**.
– Note that:
– Disagreement may not always be about **raw fact** but about **framing**:
– Which actors are blamed.
– What motives are attributed.
– Whether certain harms are foregrounded or backgrounded.
– **Time constraint and homework framing**
– Only ~10–15 minutes remained; instructor acknowledged:
– Students would not be able to complete a full “situationâ€� document in class.
– Therefore, he assigned it as **homework**:
– At minimum, by **next class**:
– Students should complete **Part 1 (core event and initial fact list with sourcing)**.
– They should be prepared to **verbally summarize**:
– The main details.
– **Who said what** (i.e., identify primary/secondary nature of sources).
– Students who wish can start on:
– The **timeline**.
– The **confirmed vs. contested** breakdown.
– Clarified that:
– Assignment is **comparative by design**:
– Students must pull across **at least two** sources, but may “go wildâ€� and include more if they wish.
– **Student clarification questions**
– Q: *“For the bullet-point timeline, should we only use our two/three presentation sources, or more?â€�*
– A: Two is the **minimum**; more are welcome.
– Q: *“When you say get as close to the primary source as possible, does that just mean noting whom the article cites?â€�*
– A: For now, yes:
– Identify who is being quoted or referenced.
– Note whether that is **first-hand** or already an **institutional synthesis** (like a UN report).
– In later assignments they may be asked to dig further down the chain.
—
### 5. Closing & Informal Conversations
– **End-of-class logistics**
– Instructor confirmed next meeting as **Thursday** (after momentary confusion with Wednesday).
– Reiterated that:
– Syllabus will soon appear on **eCourse**.
– Course code and enrollment steps were discussed with one student who had trouble finding the course.
– **New student follow-up**
– Post‑class, instructor spoke with a new student from **New York**, previously a Bard College at Simon’s Rock student now at AUCA.
– Confirmed:
– They are already in eCourse.
– They should follow the same source requirements:
– One Western state-funded.
– One non‑Western state-funded.
– Optional local/social media source.
– Reassured:
– Once the syllabus is posted, it will answer remaining structural questions.
—
## Actionable Items
### A. For Next Class (High Urgency)
– **Students – “Situationâ€� Homework (minimum requirement by next session)**
– Choose **one global event** (preferably your presentation topic).
– Gather **at least two** news sources:
– One **Western state-funded** outlet.
– One **non‑Western state-funded** outlet.
– Draft the **first part** of your “situationâ€�:
– 1–2 sentence description of the **core event**.
– Bullet list of **factual details**, each:
– Worded neutrally.
– Accompanied by:
– The **outlet** that reported it.
– The **underlying source** (government official, eyewitness, NGO report, UN document, etc.), where identifiable.
– Indication of whether that underlying source is **primary** or **secondary**.
– **Students – Start mapping actors and contested facts (if possible)**
– Begin listing **key actors** and **brief timeline steps**, citing who said what.
– Start noting **where your two sources agree** and **where they diverge** (even if only partially completed by next class).
– **Instructor – Clarify next-class expectations**
– At the start of next session:
– Restate precisely which parts of the “situationâ€� are required now and which are coming later.
– Reaffirm due dates and how this exercise will be used in upcoming weeks.
—
### B. Within This Week
– **Instructor – Finalize and publish syllabus**
– Confirm departmental approval.
– Upload syllabus to **eCourse**.
– Announce availability in class and/or via eCourse/email.
– Ensure:
– Source-comparison presentation expectations and the “situationâ€� assignment are clearly reflected in grading scheme and learning outcomes.
– **Instructor – Follow up on specific student cases for continuity**
– **Altanay (Greenland/Arctic topic)**:
– Encourage her to:
– Re-listen to the BBC/Arctic Today podcast in full.
– Read any available transcript.
– Extract **concrete examples of language** or framing that differ from CGTN.
– **Aynazik (Iran sanctions vs Greenland mismatch)**:
– Ask her to:
– Commit to **one** of the two issues.
– Find a **second, properly contrasting state-funded source** on that same event.
– Prepare to redo the comparison using a single coherent case.
– **Albina (India–Pakistan)**:
– Suggest she:
– Revisit the Reuters and Times of India articles and explicitly note:
– Which side is quoted.
– Whether any effort is made to represent Pakistani views.
– **Nino (deleted social media video)**:
– If feasible and safe, have her:
– Preserve non‑graphic metadata (post date, caption, account identity) as context for future analysis of social media bias and moderation.
—
### C. Longer-Term / Ongoing
– **Systematic exploration of “private vs state-fundedâ€� media**
– Schedule future sessions to:
– Examine ownership structures (e.g., who owns CNN, Reuters, Guardian).
– Discuss how private ownership can still be **politically and economically entangled** with state interests.
– **Planned discussion of the US “blobâ€� concept**
– Return to the idea of the **media–academia–government–military** nexus in the US:
– Use concrete examples of revolving-door careers and echo-chamber narratives around foreign policy.
– **Integrate more non-English and local sources**
– Encourage:
– Systematic use of **ChatGPT or other translation tools** to access local-language reporting.
– Comparisons between **English-language editions** of outlets (e.g., Egyptian, Chinese, Russian media in English) and their **domestic-language** content.
– **Develop structured tools for bias analysis**
– Over time, introduce:
– Checklists or rubrics for:
– Assessing **target audience**.
– Identifying **framing devices** (word choice, images, ordering).
– Distinguishing **fact claims** from **interpretive claims**.
These notes should allow you to reconstruct both the flow of the session and the emerging assignment structure, as well as track where individual student projects currently stand for follow-up.
Homework Instructions:
ASSIGNMENT #1: Drafting “The Situation� (Part 1 of Your Situational Report)
You will begin constructing a concise, factual description (“the situationâ€�) of one current global event. In this first step, you focus on gathering and organizing verifiable facts from multiple news sources, so that you can describe what is happening in a way that is as neutral and evidence‑based as possible—exactly in line with our course goal of “working together in order to understand how can we describe the things that are happening in the world around us in a way that’s neutral and factually accurate.â€�
For this homework, you are only required to complete Part 1 (the factual details + where they came from). Later, we will build this into a fuller situational report with timelines and confirmed/contested facts.
Instructions:
1. **Choose your global current event**
1.1. Select **one** global current event to focus on.
– You may **reuse the same event** you used for your in‑class presentation this week/last week.
– Or you may choose a **different event** that you are genuinely interested in (for example: Gaza war, Sudan conflict, protests in a particular country, U.S.–China tensions, Kashmir, Greenland/Trump, Iran sanctions, etc.).
1.2. Make sure the event is:
– Ongoing or very recent (a *current* issue).
– Substantial enough that multiple news outlets are covering it.
2. **Gather your required news sources**
2.1. Find at least **two** news articles about your chosen event that meet these criteria (as specified at the end of class):
– **Source A: Western, government‑funded news outlet**
– Examples of *types* (not a required list): BBC, Deutsche Welle, France 24, Voice of America, etc.
– It must be funded in some way by a **Western** state/government.
– **Source B: Non‑Western, government‑funded news outlet**
– Examples of *types*: Al Jazeera, CGTN, RT, Press TV, etc., depending on your issue.
– It must be funded in some way by a **non‑Western** state/government.
2.2. **Optional but strongly encouraged:** Find a **third source** that is:
– An **on‑the‑ground or local perspective**, such as:
– A local-language news outlet from the region,
– A social media account (e.g., Eyes on Palestine‑type accounts) posting direct photos, videos, or testimonies from the scene,
– A local NGO’s field report.
– As the instructor said to the new student: if you can find such an independent, on‑the‑ground source, “that would be an excellent third source to bring in. If you can’t find that, that’s okay.â€�
2.3. Save the links to all your sources in a document; you will need to refer to them explicitly.
3. **Read your sources closely and extract factual details**
3.1. Carefully read each selected article (and watch any key embedded videos, if relevant).
3.2. As you read, **note down factual statements** about what is happening. Examples of the kinds of facts you should extract:
– Who did what? (e.g., “The Sudanese army launched an attack in Darfur on [date].â€�)
– When did it happen? (specific dates or timeframe)
– Where did it happen? (country, region, city, specific sites)
– How many people were affected? (e.g., casualties, displaced people, etc., if reported)
– What formal decisions or statements were made? (e.g., UN resolutions, government announcements, ceasefire declarations, sanctions)
– Any concrete, observable events (e.g., “X building was bombed,â€� “protesters gathered in front of parliament,â€� “a teenager was killed by soldiers,â€� etc.).
3.3. **Avoid opinions or interpretive language** in this step.
– You are collecting *what allegedly happened*, not yet *why* or *who is right*.
– If a sentence sounds evaluative (e.g., “this was a brutal, unprovoked attackâ€�), strip it down to the factual core (e.g., “On [date], forces from X fired on Y locationâ€�).
4. **Identify the closest available primary source for each fact**
4.1. For each factual statement you extract, ask: **“How does this news outlet know this?�**
– As discussed in class: a **primary source** is someone or something with direct, first‑hand access to the event (eyewitnesses, official statements, raw video, court documents, etc.).
4.2. In your notes, under each fact, record **who or what is being cited** in the article. Common possibilities:
– A **named eyewitness** (e.g., a resident on the ground, a protester, a victim’s family member).
– An **official statement** (e.g., from a government ministry, military spokesperson, UN official).
– A **report by another organization** (e.g., UN report, NGO report—these are usually *secondary* sources).
– **Journalist’s direct observation** (e.g., “our correspondent in Gaza saw…â€�).
– **No clear source mentioned** (write this too, if that’s the case).
4.3. Next to each cited source, briefly label how close it is to a primary source:
– “Primaryâ€� – e.g., direct eyewitness, directly quoted official who made the decision, original video footage.
– “Secondaryâ€� – e.g., UN or NGO reports summarizing earlier data, one news article quoting another outlet.
– “Unclearâ€� – if the article doesn’t explain where the information actually came from.
4.4. Do **not** feel obligated to chase down the “true� ultimate origin of every fact yet. For this first part, it is enough to:
– Note who the article itself cites,
– Indicate whether that is plausibly a primary source or something further down the chain, exactly as discussed when the instructor said: “Note who they’re citing in their article, and then just make a note of […] how close that individual is to a primary source on the ground.â€�
5. **Write the first part of your “Situation� document**
For this homework, you are only preparing **Part 1: The core description and factual details with sources.**
5.1. At the top of your document, clearly state:
– **Event title:** A short, clear label (e.g., “Escalation in Darfur, Sudan, 2024â€� or “U.S. Veto of Gaza Ceasefire Resolution at UNâ€�).
– **One‑sentence core description** of the event:
– Example: “This situation concerns the ongoing conflict in [place], where [side A] and [side B] have been engaged in [type of conflict], leading to [major consequence].â€�
5.2. Under a heading like **“Factual Details and Sources�**, create a **bullet‑point list** of the key facts you extracted.
– For each bullet point, include:
– The **fact itself**, in neutral, descriptive language.
– A **citation** indicating:
– Which article it came from (e.g., “BBC, 15 Jan 2024â€� / “Al Jazeera, 16 Jan 2024â€�).
– Who the article cites for this information, if given (e.g., “quoted from Sudanese army spokesperson,â€� “UN report,â€� “local eyewitness interviewed,â€� etc.).
– Your quick label: **Primary / Secondary / Unclear**.
Example format for a single bullet:
– “On 3 January 2024, X forces shelled the city of Y, causing at least 20 deaths, according to [UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs report cited by BBC, 4 Jan 2024] (secondary source).â€�
5.3. **Combine overlapping facts across sources.**
– If BBC and Al Jazeera (for example) both say the same thing about a date or casualty number, you do **not** need to write it twice.
– Instead, write the fact once and list both as sources:
– “Fact… [Source: BBC (quoting UN OCHA), 4 Jan 2024; Al Jazeera (quoting local health officials), 5 Jan 2024].â€�
6. **Prepare to present Part 1 in the next class**
6.1. The instructor said: “I don’t expect you to have the complete situational report done by our Wednesday class, but I would like you to at least have the first part done… at the very least, when you come into class on Wednesday, you should be ready to tell me what were the main details included in this case, across the sources that you’ve read, and who said so.â€�
6.2. Before class, review your document so you can:
– Briefly **explain your chosen event** (1–2 sentences).
– List **several key facts** from your bullet points.
– Say **who** is being cited for those facts (eyewitness, government official, UN report, etc.).
– Indicate whether those are **primary or secondary sources** (or unclear).
7. **Keep the larger structure in mind (for later parts)**
7.1. In class, the instructor outlined that the full “Situation� will eventually include:
– Part 1: **Factual details + closest primary sources** (what you are doing now).
– Part 2: **Key actors and brief timeline** (“who did what, when,â€� again with citations).
– Part 3: **Confirmed vs. contested facts** (where sources agree vs. where they diverge).
7.2. You do **not** need to complete Parts 2 and 3 for the next class, but organize your notes in a way that will make it easy to add:
– A chronological timeline later,
– A section that compares agreements and disagreements between your sources.
By next class, you should arrive with:
– A chosen event,
– At least two qualified articles (Western gov‑funded and non‑Western gov‑funded),
– A written Part 1: core description + bullet list of factual details, each tagged with who said it and how close they are to a primary source.