On September 11, 2001 the world as we knew it changed forever. The United States of America was attacked by terrorists. Every single media outlet covered this act of cowardice very closely. I am going to compare the way that the U.S. published Time Magazine and British published The Economist covered these attacks. Time devoted an entire issue to the attack while The Economist continued to publish a full issue with international stories; however, the Attack on America was still the main selling point.
This paper will compare and contrast how each of these popular newsweeklies covered the biggest news story of the century and determine where, if any, bias lies. This paper will compare the magazines as a whole and will decipher which source covered the news more in depth and accurately. And of course since I am human, I will also throw in my own opinion too. Due to the magnitude of the tragic events of September 11, many media outlets shared their news and graphics amongst each other, which will bring about many similarities between the two magazines. .
To start with a few statistics, both magazines were ninety-eight pages long. Time had one main cover story and thirteen full length feature articles about the events of that fateful day, while The Economist had nine full length feature articles and twenty-six stories various regions around the world including The Americas, Asia, Europe, Britain, and an International section. Clearly The Economist chose to cover more international problems this week than Time did. To be fair to Time, this was an extremely rare event that deserved as much attention as it was given, however, I can't ever recall seeing twenty- six international articles in any issue of Time.
Time's main article is titled "Mourning in America", and it obviously has a much different tone than most articles in a Time magazine. Not only did this article have the obvious somber tone to it, but it also carried the feeling of doubt.
