Many things can be said about the 2011 revolution in Egypt. And actually, many things have been said about it, especially by the media. The course of the news reports differed significantly from paper to paper.This study compares four US-newspapers, namely 'The Wall Street Journal', 'The New York Times', 'The Washington Times', and the 'San Francisco Chronicle' with regard to their reports on the events in Egypt from January 26 until February 12, 2011. This study provides the reader with important information about these specific newspapers, and the events that happened during the so called Lotus Revolution. Further, it provides a thorough analysis about the information that have been selected by the newspapers, the words used for the reporting and the choice of interview partners.However, the study does not only offer a comparison between the different news stories that were published in the four newspapers, but also takes into account letters to the editor and editorials for these texts are important concerning the whole style and format of a newspaper. It helps the reader to form an opinion about the objectivity of reporting in US print media, and triggers him or her to think about the factors that might influence objective reporting and the reasons for it.The study is suitable for everyone who is interested in the 2011 revolution in Egypt, in the political reporting and media bias in the United States, and in the way this bias can be transported through different text types in print media.

Text Sample:Chapter 2.1.2, New York Times:During the time period investigated in this analysis, the New York Times published six editorials on the Egyptian revolution. The first one appeared on January 27 and the last one was published February 12. The average length of the editorials is 550 words.The editorials are, overall, very factual. Descriptions of what is going on in the streets are only found in one editorial, talking about'men armed with clubs, rocks, knives and firebombs' (Egypts Agonies February 4). Other than that, the words written only paint a very vague picture of the revolution, leaving a lot of room for the reader to imagine what the demonstrations and fights might look like. The editorials also provide a lot of background information, be it about Tunisias Jasmine Revolution and Egypts poverty problems (Mr. Mubarak January 27), the effects on the rest of the Middle East (Washington and Mr. Mubarak January 29), Egypts vice president Omar Suleiman, to whom a whole editorial is devoted (Mr. Suleiman February 9), and last but not least on the US-Egyptian relation, including the annual amount of military aid given to Egypt by the United States. This is mentioned in four out of six editorials and reflects a very professional way of reporting, even if it occurs in an editorial. The New York Times enables every reader to understand the background stories of what is happening and why. The reader is able to grab the most important pieces of information even though he or she might not even read the Times every day.In all six editorials, both the United States and the effects of the Egyptian revolution are mentioned and the latter is, by part, also explained in the texts. This is probably done so that the American readership can understand why the revolution in Egypt is of importance for the United States as well and why they should therefore also care about it. The New York Times also makes it very clear that the United States have a huge influence on what is happening in Egypt. In the editorial on February 2, talking about Mubaraks announcement not to run for re-election again, it is said that'Mr. Mubarak spoke after President Obamas special envoy urged him not to run again' (Beyond Mubarak).In the very first editorial, there is a slight side blow against former President George W. Bush and his policies. It is said that'President Obama was right to move beyond his predecessors democracy agenda built around military intervention and empty rhetoric' (Mr. Mubarak January 27). Other examples can be found, showing that the New York Times is supportive of the Obama administration, e.g.'President Obama is right to take pains to avoid []' (Beyond Mubarak February 2),'President Obama said the right thing []' (Mr Suleimans February 9). The Times also defends the administration against critics by using the stylistic device of argument anticipation in the editorial of February 2. It states that'[c]ritics here and in Egypt have complained []. Balancing national security concerns against moral responsibilities is never pretty' (Beyond Mubarak). The paper is acting like the administrations advocate in a way. The New York Times seems to want to tell their readers to be patient with the government and to be patient with decisions because the Obama administration is going through a hard time. Still, in the editorial of February 9, it is stated that the United States and the European Union'badly miscalculated when they endorsed Egypts vice president, Omar Suleiman, to lead the transition to democracy' (Mr. Suleimans). Thus, although the general feeling is that the New York Times supports the Obama administration and its way of handling the crisis, it is still well able to express criticism when holding a different opinion.The author(s) use(s) a large amount of personal pronouns in the editorials to create a kind of community spirit and to show that the New York Times is part of the American people, that it is not above but among all the other US-citizens. This direct inclusion can be found in every single editorial ('we wont try to game []' (Washington and Mr. Mubarak January 29),'we are skeptical []' (Beyond Mubarak February 2),'we fear Mr. Mubarak is planning []' (Egypts Agonies February 4)). In some, it is even the first word of the text;'We sympathize with the []' (Mr. Mubarak January 27),'We are a long way from knowing []' (Mr. Suleimans February 9). Another aspect stands out in the category of word choice. Many times, the writers choose to use the term'Liberation Square' instead of'Tahrir Square' (Beyond Mubarak February 2), (Mr. Suleimans February 9) or even use both terms in one sentence (Egypts Agonies February 4). One could interpret this as a sign set by the paper, signaling that the New York Times believes in the liberation of the Egyptians. The word triggers positive thoughts about the revolution and suggests freedom is actually located in this square in Cairo.Apart from that very emotional and direct way of presenting things, the New York Times manages to stay rational and does not only cheer full of joy when Mubarak finally steps down, but also raises some skepticism. It is stated that they'felt anxiety about the news that a council of military leaders will now run the country' (Egypts Moment February 12). That, again, shows that the New York Times editorial board wants to express that they are well able to see the bigger picture and do not just see the good or the bad side in things happening.