When I’m in the States I follow the news, especially political news, pretty closely. Thanks to the internet I haven’t had much trouble continuing that practice while I’m here in Hong Kong.

The different perspectives of Chinese news coverage have been the most interesting part of following local news outlets. One particular article stands out in my memory. Hong Kong’s English-language newspaper ran a headline that said: “US to blame for escalating tension in South China Sea, China claims.”

In the article, the spokeswoman for the mainland Chinese legislature said the U.S. was sending the most advanced military vessels to the region and that it was sending a lot of them. Her argument was that although the U.S. claims that China is the one militarizing the area, in reality the U.S. is causing the militarization itself through these actions.

U.S. news outlets covered these statements too, but they did so in a very different way. An article in Time magazine had a similar headline: “China Accuses the US of ‘Militarizing’ the South China Sea.”

Both news outlets mentioned the spokeswoman’s main point in their first paragraph. The Time article started out describing the military elements that China has in the area. Then, it summarized the spokeswoman’s statements.

The Hong Kong paper mentioned that the U.S. claims China has been militarizing the region, and quoted a professor who mentioned China’s island construction. However, the article never specified what military elements China had in the region. Both gave details about the U.S. military presence in the region, but each gave different details.

There are plenty of reasons for these differences. For one, the South China Sea dispute is much closer to the average Hong Kong resident than the average American. Therefore, it makes sense that readers of Hong Kong’s newspaper readers may have more background on the topic. Regardless of the reasons for these differences, the fact remains that how story is written can really influence a reader’s opinion.

These kinds of instances are a daily reminder of the importance of perspective in news coverage. The South China Sea debate has been brewing for a long time, and each country has its own prerogative. I’ve been following that debate through U.S. coverage for a long time, but seeing it now through a different lens is eye-opening.

I’ve also seen a lot of coverage of the American primaries. Often, when I take the subway to school I see Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders or Ted Cruz on the train’s TV screens. It’s hard for me to follow the specifics of what the anchors are saying because most of it is in Cantonese, but a lot of the locals I’ve met here seem up-to-date on what’s going on with America’s election cycle. They ask me who I support and seem to have opinions of their own.

Although the perspectives of news coverage are different, the style and visual appearance of television news in every place I’ve visited are quite similar. There are only so many possible iterations of a person sitting at a desk and talking while graphics and video bounce on and off the screen. However, I have noticed a few small differences. For example, in Thailand the anchors put their hands together and respectfully bowed their heads, a traditional Thai sign of respect, at the end of the broadcast.

I’m hoping to be a professional journalist one day. Comparing coverage has been a really useful activity for me because, hopefully, it will help me be more aware of my own personal biases and how they come across in my writing.

Claire Moran is a junior broadcast and digital journalism and international relations dual major. Her column appears weekly in Pulp. She can be reached at clmoran@syr.edu.

Published on April 13, 2016 at 4:48 pm