Why is My White Agenda Different From Your Hispanic Agenda?
If you read the New York Times, and presumably other online newspapers,you may notice that there is a different version available to read in English, Spanish, and Chinese. This is a great push towards inclusiveness by recognizing the diversity of your audiences. However, the major problem by choosing to read in a different language is your scope of articles is drastically reduced. The layout and even topics between the English and Spanish versions of the New York Times is borderline offensive. Let's briefly compare the two sites.
Here, we see the "Front Page" of the New York Times - Spanish Edition. You'll notice a story about New Zealand's Prime Minister, Aztec mosaics, Lasik Eye Surgery, and
homophobia in Mexico. Our header bar gives us the option to read: news,culture,opinion, Latin America, or Reposado.
These screenshots, taken on the same: day, time, and page, depict completely different pictures of the news scene. When viewing the entire Spanish page, there is no mention of the President or any of his recent policies. There was, however, plenty of recent coverage of the World Cup games- something missing from much of the English page. These differences are striking and arguable prejudice. I can't fathom a reason as to why these pages are so drastically different other than peoples' agendas.
After researching these pages further, I found that The New York Times launched a Spanish, Chinese, and Portuguese version of their paper to "tailor our journalism and products to make them more relevant for specific new audiences, rather than viewing the rest of the world as just one big audience" according to Mark Thompson & Dean Baquet. The Spanish version was launched out of Mexico City in 2015 and was spearheaded by 6 journalists. There was a Portuguese version that previously failed and the Chinese version was banned in China shortly after release. Even the Chinese version of the New York Times looks more authentic and "real" than the Spanish version.
It appears that the Times-Spanish Edition has been placed on the back-burner. Almost as if it wasn't as important as the Times-English. Understandably it isn't as important, but the fact that Mr. Thompson and Mr. Baquet said they want to "make them more relevant for specific new audiences" and then only highlight World Cup games is disgraceful. "Spanish-language journalism is not the only ethnic media in the united states, but in many ways it is the most central to the daily life of an increasingly politically assertive ethnic group" (Anderson et. all, 2016 p. 143). Hispanics are one of the fastest growing races in the United States, and as their cultural impact grows, so should Spanish media outlets. Because of their growth, and the simple fact that all persons should be treated as equals, all editions- Spanish, Portuguese, and Chinese should be based on the Times English edition. The New York Times should cover similar stories for and versions, then branch out into more relevant material. The versions all need to be revamped to hide the blatant prejudices found between the two versions of the Times.
homophobia in Mexico. Our header bar gives us the option to read: news,culture,opinion, Latin America, or Reposado.
These screenshots, taken on the same: day, time, and page, depict completely different pictures of the news scene. When viewing the entire Spanish page, there is no mention of the President or any of his recent policies. There was, however, plenty of recent coverage of the World Cup games- something missing from much of the English page. These differences are striking and arguable prejudice. I can't fathom a reason as to why these pages are so drastically different other than peoples' agendas.
After researching these pages further, I found that The New York Times launched a Spanish, Chinese, and Portuguese version of their paper to "tailor our journalism and products to make them more relevant for specific new audiences, rather than viewing the rest of the world as just one big audience" according to Mark Thompson & Dean Baquet. The Spanish version was launched out of Mexico City in 2015 and was spearheaded by 6 journalists. There was a Portuguese version that previously failed and the Chinese version was banned in China shortly after release. Even the Chinese version of the New York Times looks more authentic and "real" than the Spanish version.
It appears that the Times-Spanish Edition has been placed on the back-burner. Almost as if it wasn't as important as the Times-English. Understandably it isn't as important, but the fact that Mr. Thompson and Mr. Baquet said they want to "make them more relevant for specific new audiences" and then only highlight World Cup games is disgraceful. "Spanish-language journalism is not the only ethnic media in the united states, but in many ways it is the most central to the daily life of an increasingly politically assertive ethnic group" (Anderson et. all, 2016 p. 143). Hispanics are one of the fastest growing races in the United States, and as their cultural impact grows, so should Spanish media outlets. Because of their growth, and the simple fact that all persons should be treated as equals, all editions- Spanish, Portuguese, and Chinese should be based on the Times English edition. The New York Times should cover similar stories for and versions, then branch out into more relevant material. The versions all need to be revamped to hide the blatant prejudices found between the two versions of the Times.
Comments
Post a Comment