Australian Science and Mathematics School

The deadly language of Journalists

Computer-Mediated Study

Melanie Bennett

February 2014

This essay will compare two forms of computer-mediated communication. The two forms of communication are an Adelaide News website called “Adelaide Now” and a “WikiLeaks” website. The websites communicate important news; this is the language of journalism

The deadly language of JournalistsBy Melanie Bennett

The words of journalists are a load of ####! This essay will compare two forms of computer-mediated communication. The two forms of communication are an Adelaide News website called “Adelaide Now” and a “WikiLeaks” website. The websites communicate important news; this is the language of journalism. Original news papers contained only news; with a purpose of informing the public of current information. Centuries later; journalism is now a computer-mediated form of communication but is still similar in its features.

The purpose of WikiLeaks is to bring important information to the public. WikiLeaks intention focuses on making the public aware of what is going on behind the closed doors of organisations that spend money concealing it. Due to their purpose, information must be truthful and kept in its original form. Techniques are used to ensure its credibility is intact and the communicational purposes are met. However, the organisations journalists are often labelled as terrorists; creating havoc by leaking secrets and putting lives and organisations in danger; an unintentional purpose of the website.

Figure 1: WikiLeaks Website explaining intentions

In comparison, Adelaide Now’s intentions are similar to WikiLeaks’. Adelaide now presents the purpose of catching up the public on current events and ideas that are happening in the world. Differing from WikiLeaks, Adelaide Now intends to make money by selling space on their site for advertisers. The more people viewing the website; the more money advertisers will pay. Therefore, in conjunction to bringing the news, Adelaide Now largely focuses on enticing people to read their website; successfully doing so by using sneaky techniques.

WikiLeaks needs to communicate information they present is trust worthy. The form relates to the intention and the message the website is intending to communicate. In WikiLeaks case, the layout must fit a professional context. From a short time of viewing, it is obvious to see what the company is trying to communicate. WikiLeaks looks credible. The website is clean, with a tidy layout, white background, readable fonts and clear headings. An absence of advertisements and colour reassures that there is no attempt to make money and their purpose is somewhat truthful. However, the website is boring and contains hundred or documents that typically do not relate to the public; highlighting that the website is only useful if the audience knows what they are looking for.

The deadly language of JournalistsBy Melanie Bennett

Figure 2: Example of the layout of a WikiLeaks webpage.

Unlike WikiLeaks, Adelaide Now attempts to communicate that their website is entertaining, but maintains a credible impression. Their page is overstimulating; the webpage includes tens of headings and headlines that would entice every type of audience and bright advertisements stretching hide relevant articles from every available space. It visually looks similar to a newspaper but it also looks like the editors went a crazy when they discovered colour had no extra cost. Along with the visual content, Adelaide Now attempts to look professional with clear layouts, titles and background but fails to redeem professionalism.

Figure 3: Example of the layout of the Adelaide Now webpage, in relation to the advertising aspects.

Language plays an important role in communication through a website. The main comparison between the websites is that WikiLeaks strictly maintains a credible front by providing original documents to decrease the risk of misquotes. The language is impersonal. The articles formats are similar; there is a title stating exactly what the article is, there is a small paragraph explaining the ‘who, what when and where’s’ of the topic, lastly, there is a copy of the original information. These factors ensure the websites content is credible.

The deadly language of JournalistsBy Melanie Bennett

Figure 4: Example of an Article presented by WikiLeaks.

In comparison, Adelaide Now’s articles resemble those in newspapers. The content is split into ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ news. Hard news refers to topics that are serious, accounting for real life events, whereas, soft news refers to topics that effects the reader’s life. The structure of the article rarely changes; beginning with over headlines and following with a headline, sub heading, lead and wrap up. There are many language features which attempt to create an emotional response from the reader. Shorter words are used to decrease the risk of uninteresting stories. Loaded words create an emotional response. A range of gimmicks are used, including: puns, homophones, homonyms, metaphors, alliteration and rhyme. All types of language in Adelaide Now have been used to evoke an emotional response compared to WikiLeaks which is described as a database of facts and hard news.

Figure 5: Example of play on words in an article for comedy effect.

The audience relates to the purpose and context. Julian Assange is the creator of WikiLeaks and is one of the only people known from the organisation. Due to high level assassination threats against, staff and journalists remain anonymous. There is no intention for an audience; they merely communicate information to whoever listens. As it is formal, there is very little interaction. In comparison, the interrelationship between Adelaide Now journalists and the public is also broad. However, there is more interaction between readers; both websites trigger a social and sometimes argumentative form of communication between readers through foreign forums and websites.

The deadly language of JournalistsBy Melanie Bennett

This essay compared two forms of communication which broadcasted important news to the public. Adelaide Now is a website intending to entertain and advertise. Differing from Adelaide Now, WikiLeaks is a website intending to leak important information to the public that organisations spend a lot of money concealing it. Adelaide Now may look far less trustworthy and include deceptive techniques to reap in the popularity. WikiLeaks may tell nothing but the truth; however, is the truth a more harmful language? Danger approaches with uncovering secrets relating to powerful organisations. It is a risky responsibility to give the public access to secrets, considering how complex the situations can be. It may be risky but now organisations know there are limited secrets in a world full of online communications; this could reduce the chance of corruption. But are there just some doors that should be left shut?

References

2008, ‘The language of Newspapers’ University of Cagliari, viewed 6 February 2014, < http://spol.unica.it/didattica/jottini/Lingua%20Inglese%202/THE%20LANGUAGE%20OF%20NEWSPAPERS.pdf>

The advertiser contributors, 2013, viewed 5 February 2014, < http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/>

WikiLeaks Contributors, 2014, ‘WikiLeaks Archives’, WikiLeaks, viewed 5 February 2014, < http://wikileaks.ch/>