The Different Language of Two Articles Reporting the Same News

The New York Times Article                                                                   CNN Article

On December 2nd, Donald Trump, US President-elect, had a 10-minute conversation over the phone with Tsai Ing-wen, president of Taiwan. With this being the first time a US president has spoken to a Taiwanese leader since 1979, many different interpretations of the event have been shared in response. These two articles portray the different views of the event through their different use of language, despite having the same main idea.

In the article from CNN, “No one knows Trump’s next move on Taiwan”, the author emphasizes the effects that could rise from the conflict between the US and Taiwan. For instance, the author describes how “...but it was a potentially devastating breakdown in the elaborate dance between China, the United States, and Taiwan…”. The way the author uses devastating, breakdown, elaborate, and dance, over complicates her explanation, resulting in making it seem more serious to readers. The words the author uses can be easily be removed and replaced with the word “conflict”. The article also seems to evoke more seriousness with their choice of specific words. They state how “...Trump’s move has the potential to grow into a perfect storm: a downward spiral, where Beijing retaliates…”. The author has chosen to include storm and downward, words with negative connotations, to reflect her view of the situation having a chance to worsen. These words can bring out the fear in readers and persuade them to believe the author’s point. The article concludes by mentioning how “For now, uncertainty reigns in the United States, and that sets the stage for a crisis, especially, if neither Taiwan nor China can correctly interpret what Trump will do next”. Their use of the word uncertainty brings out a mysterious feeling. The word could portray the author’s thoughts of a possible outcome that could result from the event. Her use of the word crisis is much more negative and brings out the feeling of the possible outcome nearing reality.

In the article from The New York Times, “Trump Speaks With Taiwan’s Leader, an Affront to China”, the author attempts to put the blame of the event between the US and Taiwan on Trump using language. To show Trump’s carefree nature, the author claims how “...Mr. Trump has shown little concern about ruffling feathers in his exchanges with leaders”. Their use of the word “ruffling feathers” could reflect the author mocking Trump’s actions, lessening the qualifications of Trump and making him seem more responsible for the consequences of the call. The author’s use of words goes even further when they state how Trump “...has characterized climate change as a ‘Chinese hoax,’ designed to undermine the American economy. He has said China’s manipulation of its...And he has threatened to impose a 45 percent…”. The author uses words like hoax, manipulation, and threatened, words with negative connotations, to persuade readers to see the negative side of Trump. These words evoke anger in readers, resulting in the belief that Trump deserves the blame.