Same Topic, Two Connotations: Fox News vs. The New York Times

   These two articles about Donald Trump's speaking over the phone with the president of Taiwan really caught my solely because of the different wording of their individual titles. The article from Fox News is called "Trump Speaks With Taiwan's President, Risking China's Tensions," while The New York Times article is titled " Trump Speaks With Taiwan's Leader, an Affront to China." You can already tell which one is republican and which is democratic. I want to focus on the key phrases: "risking China's tensions" and "an affront to China." By using a word like "affront," in other words an insult, Trump's call sounds more serious, offensive, and more of a threat to relations. Yet, by rephrasing the same event that occurred as "risking China's tensions," Fox News is taking a different approach and making this sound more like a chance result or not as big of a deal as it really is. In this scenario, both news reports are using certain words that would motivate their prospective audiences, or parties in this case, to feel, believe, think, and talk about certain things from the writers' perspective on the issue or event at hand. Then, near the beginning of each article, you can see two distinct attitudes towards Trump's discussion with President Tsai Ing-wen. "President-elect Donald Trump spoke Friday with the president of Taiwan, a move that will be sure to anger China." (Fox News) The New York Times article stated, "President-elect Donald J. Trump spoke by telephone with Taiwan's president on Friday, a striking break with nearly four decades of diplomatic practice that could precipitate a major rift with China even before Mr. Trump takes office."
   Both are stating the same news, but from two entirely different angles. Compared to the Fox News article, the New York Times article makes the situation sound way more dangerous to our relations with China. Their article uses bigger, more elaborate wording that makes you see that there's something to worry about, while the other article states that this call will merely "anger" China, rather than promote a potential threat to our mutual agreements. As you can see, different newspapers and sources explain the same story in different ways to make the readers feel something, change their attitude, and/or make them believe or think something is what it's not. Media can really influence your views and beliefs just by one word, even if you don't realize it.