|
Bush and Putin Get Together for Three
Days of Missile Talks
By Xaviera Silva
Tuesday, November 13, 2001
The topic of my observation is meeting between Bush
and Putin. It started today in Washington D.C. They
are meeting to discuss cutting their nuclear stockpiles,
but most importantly, President Bush wants to reach
a deal that would allow him to test an antiballistic
missile system. Testing of this system is prohibited
under the 1972 Antiballistic Missile treaty. This story,
"Putin, Starting U.S. Trips, Predicts Missile Accord"
by David Sanger, received front-page coverage in The
New York Times, but seemed secondary to the local story
about the airline crash in the Rockaways. Most of the
paper's coverage was focused on that. Slate does not
feature this story, nor does my service provider AOL.
CNN.COM reported the story in "Other Top New", and called
it "Bush Announces Major Nuclear Cuts". The report was
short and sweet, much like the broadcast. I would not
be surprised if this directly taken from the CNN newscast.
In respect to advertising and navigation, the story
was easy to find. CNN's hallmark is to have an easily
read website. The story did not receive very much coverage
online in terms of utilizing different media or taking
different angles to the story. I think because this
meeting has an indirect effect on the war in Afghanistan,
that there was not as much attention put on it as compared
to the bipartisanship in Congress.
Wednesday, November 14, 2001
Today The New York Times had the story, titled "Bush
and Putin Agree to Reduce Stockpile of Nuclear Warheads"
by David Sanger, on the front-page again. It appeared
as a top story on the left hand side. The story reveals
that the meeting has moved to Bush's ranch in Crawford,
Texas, and that the two leaders have agreed to cut their
nuclear stockpile by about two thirds. But, it seems
Bush has not been able to get anywhere with his missile
testing endeavors. I guess that bush's next step is
to wine and dine Putin into seeing things his way. I
like this article because it was informative in respect
to where both leaders stand on their country's defense,
as well as where they stand in relation to Afghanistan.
CNN.COM covered this as a headline as well, but like
yesterday the story was short and to the point. The
only advertising was, (as was yesterdays), a Compaq
computer column on the far right, which seemed to fit
because this is a web savvy audience. The coverage did
not give any mention to the new location of the "talks".
In fact the heading places the report coming from Washington.
Thursday, November 15, 2001
The story has moved to The New York Times International
section, it is written as a feature, titled "Out at
the Ranch, Guests from Russia" by David Sanger", and
is not breaking news. There have been no further developments
for Bush's cause; in fact, the story is all about Bush's
efforts to give Putin a little Texas hospitality, in
hopes of swaying his vote. Being a native Texan, I find
this a little offensive, because not everyone in Texas
lives on a ranch, barbecues, and eats pecan pies. I
find Bush's hospitality sickening because it perpetuates
this idea that Texans are hicks. I think that in my
entire life I've been to a rodeo twice, a ranch once,
and on a horse once. I don't wear cowboy boots, nor
do I own a ten-gallon hat. Texas is so big, and there
are some really great modern cities there. This reminds
me of the effect DALLAS had on perceptions of Texans.
Yuck! On CNN.COM there is not an entire story dedicated
to Putin's stay in Crawford, just a mere mention at
the bottom of a story called, "U.S. Warns War on Terror
is Just Beginning", and it is reported from Crawford.
Most of the story covers the Bush administration's response
to the war in Afghanistan. Advertising was the same
as yesterdays and did not interfere with the story presentation.
Friday November 16, 2001
Today, Bush and Putin made The New York Times 12th page
in the International Section. It was a regurgitation
of the previous coverage, and had added bits of detail
to Putin's stay in Crawford. For example, he learned
the Cotton Eyed Joe. (BARF!) This story was not picked
up by CNN.COM, SLATE, or my provider AOL. I think that
the talks between the two leaders have settled for the
time being. It appears that Putin has other fish to
fry, in Moscow, so the visit is over.
Saturday, November 17, 2001
I found a piece from The Washington Post titled, "The
Tough Task of Nuclear Reduction; History Shows Weapons
are Hard to Eliminate" by Walter Pincus (it seemed to
be one of the only accessible papers covering the talks),
and it pointed out that in the past there had been efforts
made by George Bush Sr. and Boris Yeltsin, to reduce
the number of weapons held by their countries, and now
that is being repeated again with George W. and Vlad
Putin. The tone of the piece suggests that this last
summit may have been a formality of some sort, and that
not much will be accomplished, much like it had been
in the past. Will history repeat itself, and the attempt
at reaching an accord between the U.S. and Russia fail?
Who knows? I feel there is so much uncertainty in the
world right now. Russia supports the war on Afghanistan,
but for how long? This story received third page coverage.
Sunday, November 18, 2001
Now that the three-day summit is over, the coverage
has turned to the global impact of the agreement reached
between Bush and Putin. In the Newsday article, "Russia's
Shift Leaves China the Odd Man Out" the Bush-Putin talks
are mentioned, but the focus of the article is on how
Russia, a former communist country has aligned itself
with western policy. What does this mean for China,
a socialist country, who has taken a step west and joined
the World Trade Organization? I predict that China will
follow Russia's example and align itself with western
policy, the article points out that for now their country
need to join the global economy and trade. Though I
surfed and surfed, I could fine nothing related to my
first topic, nor the article for the day.
Monday, November 19, 2001
Newsweek covered the Bush-Putin talks in an article
titled, "America's New Friend?" the focus of the article
was on Russian leader Vladimir Putin. It outlines his
career and his presidency. I get the feeling that there
is some skepticism from the author on Putin's alignment
with the West, because there is frequent mention of
his KGB history. This issue of Newsweek was on the stands
during the Bush-Putin summit, and I am now wondering
why no other coverage has mentioned so strongly, Putin's
KGB career. Online coverage of Bush-Putin has ceased,
I have found no commentary, or editorial about the talks.
Tuesday, November 20, 2001
This is a commentary I found in Newsday titled, "Bush
Must Melt his Cold War Mentality", I thought was interesting
because it contains some errors, and it seems that these
writers were trying to come across as an authority on
the subject. Instead they looked as though they were
trying to make Putin look underhanded. For example,
they cite that Putin never specified how many warheads
he would cut, when in fact he did, 5,800 to 1,500. Then
explains how Bush was so clear as to how many and when.
I don't find this at all objective.
Wednesday, November 21, 2001
USA TODAY, like all other print publications featured
the holiday advice from First Lady Laura Bush, and mentioned
is the three-day Bush and Putin talks. In the piece
are similarities between the first families of the U.S.
and Russia. Not much online about the Bush-Putin talks.
But, everywhere I click I get the little holiday message
from Mrs. Bush. It's on every home page of every service
provider, well maybe not every service provider, but
at least the main ones. Something I noticed on Slate,
it was a little piece called "Kick OPEC While its Down",
and though it did not mention Bush-Putin (they have
become an entity), it did get me to thinking about how
well fueled Russia is. That perhaps there is a real
reason behind Bush's down home hospitality, and that
is energy. Oh yeah, the piece was strait forward and
to the point, and there was only a column of Compaq
advertising shown, which I felt did not take away from
the story.
Thursday, November 22, 2001
On today, the day our nation gives thanks,and I turned
26. I got to spend all morning slaving over a hot stove,
(did I mention it was my birthday?), to make a Thanksgiving
Turkey Dinner for two, (the little one does not even
like turkey). I had enough time to glance through the
times, and I did not catch anything about the Bush and
Putin talks. Later, when everyone had fallen asleep,
and I was able to steal a little online time, I did
not find any online coverage.
Friday, November 23, 2001
It seems that the media has run out of spins for my
Bush-Putin. The only coverage of any relevance I have
found is "NATO Plan Offers Russia Equal Voice on Some
Policies" by Micheal Wines found in The New York Times
on the front page. It seems that Russia is one of the
gang and has been granted equal status with the other
19 permanent members of NATO. This is a great step for
Russia's economic future, they will be on friendly terms
with the European community. Bush has made comments
in support of Russia's effort to join the club. This
all pointing to the direction of my prediction, ENERGY.
The CNN.COM coverage was geared more towards the military
significance of Russia joining NATO. Advertised in the
far right column was free AOL trial hours, I guess that's
expected
Saturday, November 24, 2001
I apparently had a misunderstanding, yesterday's New
York Times had me believing that Russia was intending
on joining NATO, but it seems that they just want NATO
support on certain issues, which don't seem likely to
occur, by today's account in "Putin Says Russia to Study
Plan for Broader NATO Role" by Michael Wines, on the
9th page of The New York Times. It seems that Putin
would like to have his cake and eat it to when it comes
to certain issues of Russian policy that NATO would
like changed should they lend their support. The CNN.COM
coverage is very similar to the print report, and as
usual the only advertisement is free AOL hours in the
far right column.
Sunday, November 25, 2001
TheWashington Post article "Putin's Tilt to the West
Riles Three Key Groups; Powerful Constituencies Still
Distrustful of U.S." focuses on the issue of Putin's
success as Russia's President. It sheds light on his
current popularity and effectiveness, but that he may
be upsetting his Russian supporters and constituencies,
which may be hazardous to his future as President. I
find this to be extremely informative because as the
U.S. supports the change in Russia, there is still some
internal resistance on their behalf, which could pose
as an obstacle in the future trade of say ENERGY. Also
it sheds light on the fact that we are in an unstable
time of war and terrorism and should Putin's career
end in a coup, where does that leave us in terms of
warhead stockpiles, and cutting of weapons arsenals?
The Cold War looks to be far from over. Once again,
I have surfed and surfed and have come up with nothing
online about my Bush-Putin or Russia.
Monday, November 26, 2001
I found coverage of the Bush and Putin talks in the
11/26 issue of Businessweek. An unlikely read for me,
but my partner was hovering over it at breakfast, and
while I snatched it away, as a means to grab his attention,
I happened upon this article. Titled "U.S.-Russia: Just
How Far Will the Love Go?" outlined the issues discussed
and agreements reached during the three-day Bush-Putin
summit. It covers the defense cuts, the ABM treaty disagreement,
the benefit of Russia's willingness to alignning with
western policy will have on its economy, and finally
the Russian oil supply. The author mentions how our
little mid-east oil crisis can be eased with the help
of Russian oil supply. I just love to be right! So,
on that note, what does CNN.COM have to say? That Russia,
the world's second largest oil producer behind Saudi
Arabia has agreed to cut crude production. OPEC hopes
that the crude production decrease throughout the oil
cartel will drive prices up that have fallen due to
the falling demand in the U.S. HMM... interesting...
Like all other CNN.COM stories, this had an ad in the
far right column, it was a CNN ad for a CNN arabic website.
All in all, the online coverage that I monitored never changed due to update, it was just filed away to be found by a SEARCH.
Home | First
Wave | Undertow | Reflections
| Stepping Stones
| Weblogs
Contributors
| About Us | Archive
|
