I found that both newspapers are conveniently alike. It wasn't like the time I was looking through the Polytechnique website to answer some questions and I found it to be very different to the MIT website. Basically, The New York Times and Le Monde have the same divisions in their main pages, which make it easy to navigate through the sites.

The sections of the two newspapers seemed to be very similar. Both focused on the news with subsections that included features like art and culture and the classified sections. The headlines, however, were very different. While the French headlines in Le Monde focused on relevant international events like the elections in Honduras in addition to policy debates about drugs and violence in France, the American headlines focused on Sadam Huseein, George Bush and illegal immigration, and companies like Merck facing economic problems and job cuts.

On the website of le Monde, I found two interesting subcategories "Savoirs" and "Examens 2006" under "Pratique." "Savoirs" is a guide page to conferences on various scientific, social and artistic subjects. "Examens 2006" is a collection of various articles and seems to have to do with the "bac". (Maybe one needs some knowledge on important current events to do well in the "bac"?)

I agree with the above posts. While the two different newspaper are divided into similar sections, the headlines are very different. Le monde focuses more on interanational issues as well as French domestic issues. It also has more focus on francophone countries. Whereas, NYT focuses more on US news with a little bit of international news.

It is true that I do not read a lot of American newspapers. I usually skim The Tech and whatever I can find in the Student Center. However, I did not once see any reference to the aleged CIA prisons in Europe. On the other hand, I have read plenty of such articles in Romanian online newspapers (mainly because Romanian was accued by the EU to have hosted such a prison) and there is such an article in "Le Monde". I find it strange American newspapers do not mention it. Are they censored or do they just don't care? It could also be the case that I haven't been paying too much attention ...

I actually think that the two papers are very different. For instance, the headlines of the NYTs use very active and colorful language like referring to levies as a piece of pie and the verbs "kidnapping" "slaying" and "fights." The headlines of le Monde are much less editorialized. They simply state that deVillepin is going to "harden" the government's stance on immigration. Also, the French paper seems more concerned with international news (at least on the front page) than the American paper. As far as the subdivisions, I found it interesting that "societe" comes before "entreprise" in le Monde, whereas it's not even in the "news" section for the New York Times (but sports are...).

I think the 2 newspapers are divided up similarly. However, it seems like the French focus on international news more than the Americans. For example, under international news there is an article about the US. I think it would be more appropriate if it was under national news. Also, the only common story that is on the front page is related to Iraq.

Au risque de paraître beaucoup plus futile, j'aimerai dire un mot sur la comparaison de deux journaux qui sont assez différents et qui pourtant portent le même nom : Cosmopolitan. Si l'on compare les versions américaines et françaises, on voit tout de suite la grande différence de contenu qu'il y a entre les deux ( peut être d'ailleurs que c'est plus flagrant dans ce type de journaux, il faudrait étudier la question !)

La différence est telle que je peux facilement affirmer pouvoir lire la version française en m'amusant alors que je suis parfois choquée par la version américaine. Soyons honnête, celle-ci est beaucoup plus trash... Sans parler de la forme, c'est au contenu du journal que je m'attaquerai plus précisément.

En France, la majorité des articles sont destinés à décrire les moyens multiples que l'on peut trouver pour être une femme libérée et équilibrée : Sourire, être optimiste, se réserver des moments de détente, etc... Enfin, bref une tonne de conseils psychologiques (parfois un peu simplets, j'avoue) pour voir la vie du bon côté et pour en profiter au maximum...

Dans la version américaine, on trouve une prolifération de conseils sexuels : comment le rendre heureux, comment se donner du plaisir, quelles sont les meilleures positions : bref, un vrai guide sur comment avoir une vie sexuelle épanouie. Je ne dis pas qu'une telle rubrique n'est pas présente dans la version française, mais elle est vraiment insignifiante par rapport à la version américaine...

Ce qui m'amène, vous vous en doutez, à me poser de sérieuses questions sur la différence de nos besoins... Ou alors c'est que la presse américaine a besoin de choquer pour vendre... Ou encore s'agit-il d'une différence de conception de la notion de "politiquement correct"... La question mérite peut-être d'être creusée...

C'est raisonnable de voir qu'il y a peu de différence au niveau de division. Mais le contenu de sujet me étonne un peu. Le NYtimes contient très peu des informations sur l'Europe. Et la terrorisme est leur priorité. Une autre chose que j'ai remarqué est la poids mise en partis politiques.Le Monde a mis beaucoup plus d'accent sur les nouvelles des partis politiques que le NYtimes.

I agree with Gwen. I feel like the French headlines are just summaries of the stories--they are not attention-getters. However, the American headlines are catchy. Certain words are placed next to each other to create emotion. Once you feel angry or sad or disgusted, you want to read more. For instance "safety" and "$32 billion" makes one angry that the government seems to spend all of its money in the name of safety, "Nigeria" and "new sordid" makes one feel sorry for Nigerians because they seem to always get stuck with the short end of the stick, and "Iraqi military" and "kidnappings and slayings" makes one angry at the military who is supposed to be keeping peace, not destroying it. I think that the photos drive this home. I looked at some of the photos on Le Monde's website and found them really boring...really not something that made me want to read the article. The pictures on the NYT's site, however, made me interested in the story before I began to read it. Do you (French students) find that the headlines and pictures of the NYT are obnoxious or are they catching for you too?

With respect to the different categories, I thought it was cool that le Monde had forums, blogs, and polls on its website and that the NYT did not. Does this mean that French people are more involved in the news than Americans? Or do Americans just talk about the news at work or at home and the French interact with news on websites? Also, I thought that it was interesting to note that there weren't any obituaries or games in le Monde. I've never understood why Americans read obituaries, so I can't really comment on that, but crossword puzzles are fun! Would most French people not play games if there were some?

While I agree that the front page of the New York Times discusses less international news than that of Le Monde, I think it is partially a product of the audience. Americans who are just skimming the front page to see what's going on are probably more concerned with National issues. However, for those readers who would like to know about the current international events, there is a separate section of the newspaper dedicated to International news.

Rebecca, I found your comparison of the Cosmopolitan magazines interesting. It's true that in America, there are a lot of semi-trashy women's magazines which talk about sex more than they do self-empowerment and general health. I think this is also a product of the audience, since it seems that many American readers are just looking for a fast fix. If you see an American Cosmo , you'll notice that in addtion to sex, there are often tips on how to quickly lose weight without too much exertion. The concept is a bit silly, but with the short attention-span of many Americans, maybe its fitting.

Like Rachel, I too was surprised with all the blogs and forums I found in Le Monde. The one section that I thought was interesting was the "Examens 2006". I think Kyungmin mentioned this already, but I'm not really sure what it is. I think it has to do with the bac, but it seemed to be some kind of information source that waters down specific events in history. It's almost like a summary report of certain events that students may need to know in order to excell in the bac. The first article deals with the functionality of the German Republic in the 60's.

I think it's kind of cool that a newspaper does this. It's also kind of scary that students have to know such detailed information about the German government. If world government knowledge was a requirement for American tests like the SATs, I think Americans would get lower scores. (I know I would!)

I know the American news magazine 'U.S. News and World Report' does rankings of schools, and averages of SAT scores for students admitted to those schools. Does Le Monde do something similar with the Bac scores for universities and "grandes ecoles"? Did I miss it somewhere?

I agree with everyone for the most part about Le Monde having more of an international focus that the NY Times. I thought it was interesting though, that both papers had a regional focus. For instance, in the NYTimes there was a big artcle about the no confidence vote in Canada. Le Monde had an article about the President of Algeria going to Paris for a medical examination.

Rebecca/Maggie, I think that the Cosmopolitan discussion is interesting and I would like to add some input. While I do find most US women's magazines very trashy, I think that they serve a purpose for their readers. From what I have heard the French are much more open about sexuality compared to Americans, especially Americans in certain geographic regions. For readers, Cosmo might be their sole source of sexual education/information. It is the one place that they can go to to learn about sex because discussing it would be too taboo. Perhaps if there were more open, frank discussions about sexuality, American women could focus on more uplifting things like empowerment and their careers.

I agree with Maggie, Rachel, and Gwen. I think that in general Americans are more in a hurry and have the 'go go go' attitude and so in order for them to read an article, the titles have to be catchy. If the titles were too descriptive that's all people would read. I also think that the majority of Americans don't concern themselves much with things outside their little world. In the grand scheme of things their priorities are with their own life and only when there is a break in action will they really sit down and read about what's going on outside their little world.

I compared an article in the New York Times on the response of the American government to the question of alleged secret prisons of CIA in Eastern Europe with an article in le Monde on the same subject. The title of the NYT article is "U. S. to Respond to Inquiries Over Detentions in Europe" and the title of le Monde article is "Washington s'expliquera sur la CIA en Europe." There is not much difference in the report of the main statements by the U. S. government, but there are differences in other parts. The most remarkable difference is that the NYT article described in much more detail the reaction of the Europeans and the anger that the case generated in some European officials, while the anger is not even mentioned in le Monde article. Another interesting difference is that only the NYT article mentions the statement by the spokesman of the Department of State that confronting terrorism is "a shared responsibility of all countries." (perhaps a sort of excuse by the U. S. government?)

Rebecca,

I've seen a French Cosmopolitian and I think it is much more similiar to an American fashion magazine called W, although in recent years this magazine has become more and more celebrity- and sex-obsessed. There are a huge number of American magazines devoted to sex tips, celebrity watching, and clothes buying. They are extremely popular with women and female teenagers. Are there many of this type of magazine in France as well?

I compared the two articles (in the international secion of the NYTs and LeMonde) about the new party formed by Ariel Sharon in Israel, which has recently been joined by Shimon Peres, who left his own party as well. The American version uses many quiotes from the two politicians, and is very concerned with the upcoming elections and how many votes Peres will bring with him to the new party, and only briefly mentions the party's platform. Perhaps this is an artifact of the election-obsessed (or at least competition-obsessed) american public, or perhaps our more individualistic outlook.

The French version, on the other hand, goes into much more detail about the people involved in the new party and about it's platform. It only mentions the elections in the last paragraph. It also mentions first that Peres is a Nobel laureate, whereas the American version buries that somewhere in the middle. The writing styles are also very different- the French paragraphs are generally longer and more complex. I found it much more informative- more facts and less opinion.

Have any French students compared these articles? What do you think of the American version?... try reading it before the french version and let me know your impressions.

I also compared the two articles about Peres and Sharon. I found that the French article actually gave some detail for the plan to create a new Palestinian country and to get rid of the terrorists. The American version did not get into the details of the plan.

Both articles mentioned that Peres is a Nobel laureate, but the American version gave a little more on Peres' history.

Both articles mentioned the polls, but the American version actually gave numbers including margin of error. Maybe this shows that Americans don't believe the results of polls as easily as the French.

I read two articles that talked about Bush's speech to the naval academy about the war in Iraq. I actually found the opposite conclusion to Gwen. I found that the French article ("Aucun calendrier de retrait des troupes pour Bush mais la recherche de la 'victoire complete' en Irak") had many more quotations from politicians as well as from the 35-page paper that the White House released. In fact, almost the entire article was quotations! At first, I thought, "Wow! This is really more straight-forward than the American version." However, the quotations that the French journalist picked are very different from the ones the American journalist picked. One of the first things one reads in the French version is that Bush said, "'Je pense qu'ils ont tort.'" Then, he goes on to report that Bush said, "'tant que je serai votre commandant en chef.'" These isolated quotations can be taken very negatively, especially if taken with the title. Thus, I think the French journalist does a good job of hiding his opinion in fact--picking only the quotations that support his view--not necessarily of reporting the entire story. He leaves out Bush's reason for not pulling out of Iraq and talks nothing of the political consequences of the decision, as the American report ("Gaining control in Iraq and regaining support at home") does.

I also noticed that the NYT has a picture of the Naval Academy students cheering as well as a close up of President Bush smiling. In comparision, Le Monde had a similar picture to the one of Bush in the NYT but farther away...far enough away that one can read the banner in the background, which reads VICTORY...very subtle, but very effective.

I guess I thought that the French media was less biased than the American media, more prone to reporting the facts and not the story. What do you guys think?

Also, a quick question: I noticed that in the part of the French article that was most negative toward President Bush, the French journalist called Bush "M. Bush." In English, we would never call the President "Mr. Bush." "Mr. President" is acceptable, but not just Mr. Bush. Is this a form of disrespect or is this okay in French. Would you say M. Chirac?

I also read the articles about Shimon Peres joining Ariel Sharon new political party. To generalize the two articles, the one by the NY Times was more of a biography of Peres, while the article by Le Monde was more of a commentary on the political philosophy of the new party, Kadima. I found the French article to be much more insightful. It discussed some reasons for Peres to change parties (he was beaten in the Nov. 9 election by Amir Peretz). The article also speculated that Kadima might rejoin with the labor party after the election. As noted before, the NY Times articled discussed the statistics of the election (how legislative seats will change) within the text of the article. The article in Le Monde had had a special text box on the side to address this.

Like most of the other students, I found that it seems like the French and the Americans have two different styles when it comes to reporting news. The New York Times tries to draw one in with its big, flashy headlines that attract ones attention, but I feel don't offer that much information. On the other hand, the headlines in Le Monde are often supplemented with a small summary of the following story which I feel is a better way in which to transmit the story to the reader because it doesn't sacrifice any of the facts in an attempt to try to interest you to read it. I feel that some of the headlines in the New York Times do this and as a result, the information is ambigious at times.

Also, in response to a comment that stated that Le Monde puts more emphasis on party politics than does the New York Times, I have to say that while this may be the case in this instance, I don't think it's the general rule. The New York Times may leave out stories about party politics because it is such a diversified paper trying to attract the interests of millions of different people. However, I feel that if you go to any local newspapers or even other national papers like the USA Today, there will definitely be more emphasis placed on party politics.

I looked at (like some other people, though later articles I think) the CIA detainees being held abroad. The titles were "Rights Group Lists 26 It Says U.S. Is Holding in Secret Abroad" and "Plus de 300 vols de la CIA vers l'Europe auraient eu lieu depuis 2001" and the links are

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/02/international/europe/02detainees.html

http://www.lemonde.fr/web/article/0,1-0@2-3214,36-716341@51-705638,0.html

The most striking difference I found was that the NYT version focused on the human rights problems involved with holding these prisoners, while the le Monde version focused on the European outrage over the possibility that these prisoners were being held in their country. This difference is interesting, perhaps, because it displays the conflict evident in such perennial displays as anti-war protests: the notion of heralding "peace" as infinitely greater than "war" in all situations because with "peace," "no one is dying." The problem is that people might be dying, but "it's somewhere else" and "who cares about that place because it's far away." A war hawk might herald "ideals" instead and say that war will allow us to reach a better status quo.

Obviously I have no answers to these questions besides stating that one cannot be isolated in today's world, though the connections which prevent that isolation are very, very, very complex and difficult to manipulate.

I read an article on the alleged CIA secret prisons in Europe. I found that the article in the New York Times was more subjective and interested in the emotions and reactions of the European governments. It speculated on the possible ramifications of this discovery and of possible reasons for why the US would have secret prisons, such as to torture prisoners in countries where it wasn't illegal. On the other hand, the French article focused much more heavily on the facts, such as the number of flights documented. This was part of the title of the French article, but didn't appear until the last paragraph of the American article. The French article didn't speculate much on the consequences and it was much shorter than the American article.

I've read two articles related to the sitation in Iraque:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/02/international/middleeast/02iraq.html http://www.lemonde.fr/web/article/0,1-0@2-3222,36-716146@51-715757,0.html

The NYT article contains a lot of statistics about the number of victimes in Iraque. It shows that the situation in Iraque is a lot better than it used to be one year ago, but it is still from being perfect (see the 3 recent attacks that caused over 30 deaths each).

The article from "Le Monde" does not really discuss the situation in Iraque. It contains a lot of quotes of President Bush's. However, I think that the main intent of the citations is to ridicule Bush. Furthermore, President Bush is accused of not setting a calendar for retreating the troops from Iraque.

I am far from agreing with that is happening in Iraque. However, I do not think it is France's (or UE's or ONU's for that matter) business what the US is doing in Iraque. Iraque has a relatively stable government that should represent the will and interesent of the people in Iraque. As long as the Iraqi government does not ask the US to retreat its troops (and there are no signs that the US is trying to manipulate the Iraqi government), the US should feel free to keep its troops there for as long as they wish.

Unlike communist troops that occupied countries after WW2, the US troops are helping the local security forces to restore law and order. Without the support of US troops, the country would probably fall to anarchy. There are a lot of US casualties in Iraque. The French article does not mention anything about this.

Pour répondre à Rachel, Je suis d'accord avec toi que les journaux français sont surement plus objectif sur les faits américains car ils ont un regard extérieur sur la situation mais bien sûr ils sont beaucoup moins objectifs lorsqu'il s'agit de faits français car chaque journaal est influencé par sa ligne de conduite. Sinon, au sujet de "M. Bush", il n'est pas choquant que l'on appelle les présidents par Monsieur, même si c'est vrqi il préférable de dire le président Bush. Il est vrai que une grande majorité de la France n'apprécie pas le président Bush et c'est pour cela que l'on peut trouver ce genre de maladresses.