Whoever believes language is the only difference between American, Austrian and German reporting would find themself misled. Whether a news article, TV report or radio report, German and Austrian journalism differs from American in scope, content and organization.
I, Rebecca Schaden, have been raised with German as my mother tongue, and have always been fascinated by global events. To this end, I have found my path crossing that of Austrian media relatively early in life.
I too, Pierce Bruns, have held an interest in German media and news, as my German father and I speak German at home — giving me the German language experience and connection.
As journalists for Technician, we have noticed the differences between the reporting styles of American journalists and those reporting in German language.
Therefore, we decided to lay out two different themes in this article. In examining the reporting of recent major international news from both perspectives, we can highlight the difference in coverage.
Although the term ‘affirmative action’ is somewhat familiar to most Americans, the term is not necessarily known by German and Austrian audiences. That is because the term is often not further explained in Austrian and German reporting.
Hence, the headline of ‘Österreichischer Rundfunk,’ ORF, reads ‘Promotion of minorities at universities overturned,’ while the news magazine ‘Der Spiegel’ speaks of ‘Supreme Court prohibits student selection based on skin color — and these are the consequences.’ ORF does not mention the term ‘affirmative action’ in the headline.
Another noticeable difference can be seen in the structure and makeup of the American articles, as The New York Times and Washington Post focus mostly on the process that led to the resolution instead of the resolution itself.
An article published by the Washington Post in June 2023, for example, explained the reasoning behind the Court’s decision, as well as the unusual actions taken by Justice Clarence Thomas after the decision — he read his concurring opinion aloud.
“Thomas, who for decades was in the minority as the court upheld versions of affirmative action policies, took the unusual step of reading from his concurring opinion immediately after Roberts read the majority’s decision,” the article read.
The New York Times also focuses on this kind of theme, highlighting the players behind the decision, and less on the handling of the decision.
“Justice Sonia Sotomayor summarized her dissent from the bench, a rare move that signals profound disagreement, and said that affirmative action was crucial to countering persistent and systematic racial discrimination,” wrote New York Times reporter Adam Liptak.
This shows that American journalists are particularly interested in subtle signals from players and want to draw attention to or explain them in more detail. Austrian and German news media, on the other hand, get to the point more quickly.
Sources are typically translated directly into German, yet quotes are usually not explicitly sourced — instead having to be understood in the context of the article. Therefore, the clarification of who said what is often not well followed in German articles.
A good example of this is portrayed in the ORF article relating to the Supreme Court’s decision, which translates Chief Justice John Roberts’ decision directly into German.
As another part of the news cycle, the American, German and Austrian reporting on the COP28 conference in Dubai shows diverging interests as the outlets stress different points. One particularly controversial point comes in the form of the host, the United Arab Emirates, and its role in the process.
On a further note, the Austrian journal “Wiener Zeitung” gives a skeptical view of the conference’s efficacy, stating that no country is obligated to promote green policies.
However, the Germans see a different perspective, with ‘Der Spiegel’ reporting on the creation of a catastrophe fund for developing countries by the German and Emirati governments as a pleasant surprise.
While German media focuses on the breakthrough of the conference between Germany and the UAE, the American media takes a more skeptical view of the event’s organizers.
“There is skepticism of this COP — where it is and who is running it,” said Ani Dasgupta, president of the World Resources Institute, a research organization.”
The New York Times and the Washington Post criticize President Joe Biden’s decision to not attend the meeting. The former illustrates this point by quoting the Union of Concerned Scientists, a group that advocates for progress in mitigating climate change and sees this climate conference as a good starting point for global cooperation.
“This is a crucial moment for the United States to join with other world leaders and demonstrate genuine progress toward solving a crisis that is rapidly spiraling out of control.”
It is intriguing to see how Austrian, American and German media reporting differs, especially when the topics remain practically the same. It is the responsibility of journalists to inform their audience of events, and to pander to the relevant aspects for their respective audiences.
To this end, we suggest that readers expand their sourcing of news, and not to rely on a single source of information. This is particularly relevant when national news media pursue certain political interests.
With a diverse basis of information, readers enable themselves to see all angles of the story — whether foreign or domestic — and thus form an informed opinion on various topics.
