1. To propagandise or to support: how international and local news media's intention leads to its news presentation on religious censorship
2. The hidden agenda of international and local news media on religious censorship
3. International and local news media's intention on religious censorship: flare up or cool down?
*No. 3 seems to be better, I think
Essay objective:
To convince readers that international and local news media have a vast difference in reporting about religious censorship based on the textual and image analysis of the same news.
In this case, international newspaper The Guardian (G) flares things up while local newspaper Sin Chew Daily (SC) cools things down when reporting about the Ultraman The Ultra Power comic book ban in Malaysia.
Argument:
1. news coverage, arrangement of content
- G: out of 13 paragraphs, 5 talks about the Catholic church case, another issue regarding religious censorship in Malaysia (ends with sentences about Catholic church)
=> G has the intention of relating the Ultraman issue with the Catholic church case
- SC: included 4 straight news (1 official statement from the Home Ministry, 3 Chinese politicians' opinion regarding the issue) and 1 editorial attributing full responsibility to the translator for irresponsible use of translation programme
=> SC in general has a balanced and rational view on the issue (included the ban reasons, voices of disagreement and the root cause of the problem)
2. analysing word choices and tone
(A) general word choices and tone
- G: similar to the broadsheet format, the paper tends to be formal, thus, less emotive language or extreme words are used to criticise the Home Ministry's decision for both the Ultraman and Catholic church case
~ eg. "... raised religious tensions in the majority Muslim country."
"The decision has led to a widespread ridicule among Malaysian Facebook and Twitter users..."
" a much-criticised law that gives authorities wide-ranging powers over printed material..."
~ their language is more neutral if compared to other international news media such as TIME: "A Japanese superhero is apparently destroying Malaysia", "The Ultraman ban is the latest example of growing hard-line religious conservatism under the country's United Malays National Organization-led government."
=> G is discreet in their intentions and uses euphemism to show their disapproval on the matter
- SC: being a broadsheet, the adapted writing style is similar to G when reporting straight news, voices of disagreement are presented in a moderate tone which sounds like suggestions/discussions rather than direct condemnation
~ examples refer to SC headlines and Semiotic analysis with Daniel Chandler (Part 1): Table/ Responsibility/3
~ in editorial, the applied tone is more ironic, criticising and almost unreservedly blaming the translator for the 'innocent death' of Ultraman
~ examples refer to Semiotic analysis with Daniel Chandler (Part 1): Table/ Responsibility/1
=> SC is somewhat being discreet too, but with the intention of cooling down the whole issue: the paper started with a report from the Home Ministry, followed by moderate voices of disagreement to pacify the readers and then an indiscreet outburst towards the translator to generate the feeling of incrimination towards the translator, in turn diverting the readers' attention away from the Home Ministry and its decision on Ultraman The Ultra Power.
(B) Leader of UMNO Youth Khairy Jamaluddin's "What wrong did Ultraman do?" (refer to Semiotic analysis with Daniel Chandler (Part 1): Table/ Human interest/2
- both newspapers' different word choice lead to different interpretations on Khairy's tweet: G sends out the feeling that Malaysian social media and Khairy are mocking the Home Ministry whereas SC suggests confusion regarding the ban decision
=> G tries to imply that there is more tension between Malaysian social media and the government compared to SC
3. image analysis (images refer to Semiotic analysis with Daniel Chandler (Part 1): Table/ Human interest
- G:
~ location: a shop in Karak = a local everyday scene in Malaysia
~ Ultraman figure balloons = one of children's favourite toys = childhood memories/companion
~ many Ultraman balloons hanging openly = Ultraman is famous and its merchandises are easily available/purchasable
=> G tries to generate the feeling of sympathy among their readers towards Ultraman, and transfer the same feeling to the Catholic church and their publication, Herald (both share the same faith of being banned under the Printing Presses and Publication Act), in turn, a feeling of disapproval towards the Home Ministry for forbidding the use of "Allah" by non-Muslims- SC (photo montage):
~ a social media image showing the controversial line in Malay together with its matching Ultraman synopsis in English = a comparison between Malay translation and original English version
~ beheaded Ultraman figurine = brutal execution of Ultraman? = the banning of Ultraman being a cruel act?
~ "Do you know why ULTRAMAN got banned? ... because someone decided to use Google Translator." (in English) = the "someone" and Google Translate is the cause of the Ultraman ban
~ ""Someone doesn't know Japanese but used Google Translate, in the end... Ultraman died wrongfully." (in Chinese) = Ultraman's undeserved ban was due to the ignorant use of Google Translate by the translator
=> SC also tries to generate the feeling of sympathy towards Ultraman but also great annoyance towards the translator, hence, divert the rage to the translator, reducing the tension between non-Muslims and the government
4. information not mentioned in the news
- G:
~ did not report about the root cause of the Ultraman issue
=> G's priority seems to be on religious censorship especially the Catholic church issue and the use of "Allah" by non-Muslims (freedom of expression and religion)
- SC: did not mention the conflict between the Catholic church and the government
=> SC understands the sensitivity of the Catholic church case and does not want the readers to see the Ultraman issue as another case of religious censorship, but rather, a cause and effect of faulty translation
- both newspaper did not cover the Malaysian Muslim civillians' response
=> G: the paper intends to represent the reality of the Catholic church in Malaysia, thus, reporting more from the Catholics church's point of view
=> SC: the paper intends to cool down the situation, hence, not reporting the Muslim's response as they most probably support the book ban (further explanation to refer Semiotic analysis with Daniel Chandler (Part 2): Q&A 3)
5. target market
- G: an international British newspaper targeted to international progressive readers
=> cares about the global trends and news, would like to explore the Ultraman issue in a bigger picture, hence, its relationship to the Catholic church issue
- SC: a Malaysian Chinese mainstream newspaper targeted to local Chinese community
=> understands the importance of unity among all religions in Malaysia, thus avoids reports that would further provoke or raise religious tensions among Muslims and non-Muslims in Malaysia
Conclusion:
The Guardian shows intention of flaring up the news by relating the Ultraman ban to a bigger religious censorship issue. However, the techniques used are discreet and subtle.
Sin Chew Daily tries to cool down the whole situation by diverting the readers' attention to the root cause of the issue to maintain the unity of Malaysians.
