There are some interesting approaches to the events in Paris taken by the New York Times, including some thinly veiled criticism of the French government which I think is masquerading as reporting.
---The French government is apparently, "unable" to quell nearly two weeks of civil unrest.
There is the use of emotive language as below, which can be interpreted as journalistic flair, and engaging writing, but this does nothing for objective reporting. Readers can understand from statistics about the events that the youths are rampaging, and do not necessarily need to be told without immediate back-up of such a term.
---Bands of youths continued to, "rampage."
The Times seems to criticise the French authorities:
---There were, "mostly ineffectual pledges," by French leaders to restore order and crack down on lawbreakers.
Merely adding to the drastically dire description of the government's situation:
---Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin spoke during a, "grim-faced address," in Parliament.
The following seems to be a judgment call on the circumstances of racial integration in France. However unsuccessful this may or may not have been, the Times still seems to be voicing their own opinion on the situation:
---There is, "entrenched racial discrimination and chronic unemployment," that has, "bred resentment and alienation," in French suburbs.
The Prime Minister, is almost shown as confessing the problem, as if he hasn't already faced up the difficult reality of the situation.
---Mr. Villepin admits that merely restoring order would "take some time."
Mr. Villepin and other French leaders have come under stinging criticism for their response to the unrest, which has caused one death since it began on Oct. 27 and left a smoking trail of more than 6,000 ruined cars in 300 cities and towns, even amid signs that the violence had ebbed a bit overnight.
Whose stinging criticism?
That lack of public visibility by Mr. Chirac, who suffered what was thought to be a mild stroke in September, has contributed, critics say, to an atmosphere of political drift during a time of crisis.
Which critics? There is no counter-point by any government officials, and the critics are still left unnamed.
Finally, some factual back-up for the reported chaos and rampaging:
On Monday night, the French police said, 1,173 cars were burned throughout the country, compared with 1,408 vehicles the previous night. The police arrested 330 people, down from 395 the night before. Unrest was reported in 226 towns, compared with close to 300 towns on Sunday night.
---The government is apparently, "desperate," and has thus decided to use an old curfew law. This description of the government again appears to come directly from the Times.
More unnamed critics below:
But critics said the introduction of curfews carried a more distant, and troubling, historical echo.
And again:
In an unfortunate bit of symbolism, the critics said, those most affected by the decree would be the descendants of North Africans who were caught up in that French colonial misadventure.
At last, one name is put to the face of the criticism. Does this constitute "critics," or is one newspaper representative of only one "critic?"
Paris daily Le Monde declared, "that after 50 years France intends to treat them exactly as it did their grandparents." Mr. Villepin, the newspaper said, "should recall that at that time, the combination of misunderstanding, warlike posturing, and powerlessness brought the republic to its worst ever moment."
Apparently the government's oppositions are the "critics." Now that's a surprise isn't it:
Mr. Villepin and Mr. Sarkozy listened stone-faced to a volley of criticism from opposition party members. A Socialist Party deputy, Jean-Marc Ayrault, said, "Your government, Mr. Prime Minister, bears heavy responsibility over this outburst of passions."
And more criticism appears in an unclearly attributed form below:
While much of the criticism focused on the government's response, some of it may reflect a more general frustration with the black eye that this proud country is sustaining abroad.
The use of the word, "may," above also seems to be a hypothesis being floated by the Times writer.
And perhaps, after all, the opposition's anger is the fault of the foreign media, goading the French failure to deal with this series of challenging circumstances, the Times rather amusingly reports. Is this somewhat shamefaced reporting?
It seems that the Times is reporting, that the French newspaper is reporting, that foreign media (NOT including the Times, natch) are being overly and unnecessarily critical of the situation, and this is fuelling opposition criticism of Chirac, Villepin, Sarkozy et al.
As the daily Le Parisien put it, "From Italy to South Africa, Poland to China, from CNN to Al Jazeera, the newspaper headlines and television commentaries set against a background of blazing cars, are really hyping it up."
Melanie Brooks @ November 8, 2005 - 5:18pm
I think you do have some good points, but I do believe some of them are a stretch.
I don't think the use of the word "unable" in your first example is at all questionable. The government is unable to quell unrest. That's a straight fact. If they were able, the riots would stop.
Also the use of the world "rampage" when describing what the bands of youths are doing describes the riots to a tee. Rampage as a verb means to "act violently, recklessly, or destructively". If that doesn't serve as a perfect synonym of a riot I don't know what does.
A "grim-faced" address is pushing it, I agree. And using the word "admit" is always a bit touchy.
»