Hoe vorm die nuus hoe ons die wêreld sien? Só lyk die wêreld gebaseer op landmassa. En hier's hoe nuus vorm wat Amerikaners sien. Dié kaart -- (Applous) -- wys hoeveel sekondes die Amerikaanse netwerk- en kabelnuus aan nuusstories toegewy het, volgens land, in Februarie 2007 -- net een jaar gelede. Noord-Korea het in dieselfde maand ingestem om hulle kernfasiliteite af te breek. Daar was enorme vloede in Indonesië. En in Parys publiseer die IPCC 'n verslag wat ons impak op aardverwarming bevestig. Die VSA geniet 79 persent van die nuusdekking. En wanneer ons die VSA uithaal, en na die oorblywende 21 persent kyk, sien ons baie Irak -- die groot groen ding -- en min andersins. Dekking van Rusland, China en Indië saam maak slegs een persent uit.
How does the news shape the way we see the world? Here's the world based on the way it looks -- based on landmass. And here's how news shapes what Americans see. This map -- (Applause) -- this map shows the number of seconds that American network and cable news organizations dedicated to news stories, by country, in February of 2007 -- just one year ago. Now, this was a month when North Korea agreed to dismantle its nuclear facilities. There was massive flooding in Indonesia. And in Paris, the IPCC released its study confirming man's impact on global warming. The U.S. accounted for 79 percent of total news coverage. And when we take out the U.S. and look at the remaining 21 percent, we see a lot of Iraq -- that's that big green thing there -- and little else. The combined coverage of Russia, China and India, for example, reached just one percent.
Toe ons al die nuus stories ontleed en slegs een storie verwyder het, het die wêreld so gelyk. Wat was die storie? Die afsterwe van Anna Nicole Smith. Dié storie oorskadu elke land behalwe Irak, en het 10 keer meer dekking as die IPCC-verslag ontvang. En die siklus gaan voort; soos ons almal weet is Britney groot nuus.
When we analyzed all the news stories and removed just one story, here's how the world looked. What was that story? The death of Anna Nicole Smith. This story eclipsed every country except Iraq, and received 10 times the coverage of the IPCC report. And the cycle continues; as we all know, Britney has loomed pretty large lately.
So hoekom hoor ons nie meer oor die wêreld nie? Een rede: Die nuusnetwerke het die hoeveelheid oorsese buro's halveer. Behalwe vir een-persoon ABC mini-buro's in Nairobi, Nieu-Delhi en Mumbai, is daar geen ander nuusnetwerkburo's in die hele Afrika, Indië of Suid-Amerika nie -- plekke met meer as twee miljard mense.
So, why don't we hear more about the world? One reason is that news networks have reduced the number of their foreign bureaus by half. Aside from one-person ABC mini-bureaus in Nairobi, New Delhi and Mumbai, there are no network news bureaus in all of Africa, India or South America -- places that are home to more than two billion people.
Die realiteit is dat dit goedkoper is om Britney te dek. Die tekort aan globale dekking is nog meer onrusbarend as ons kyk waarheen mense gaan vir nuus. Plaaslike TV-nuus is groot, en slegs 12 persent van hulle dekking word aan internasionale nuus gewy.
The reality is that covering Britney is cheaper. And this lack of global coverage is all the more disturbing when we see where people go for news. Local TV news looms large, and unfortunately only dedicates 12 percent of its coverage to international news.
En wat van die web? Die gewildste nuustuistes vaar nie veel beter nie. Laas jaar het Pew en die Colombia J-School 14 000 stories ontleed wat op Google News se voorblad verskyn het. En hulle het almal dieselfde 24 nuusgebeure gedek. Net so het 'n studie van e-inhoud gewys dat baie globale nuus van Amerikaanse nuusverskaffers hergesirkuleerde stories van die AP nuusagentskappe en Reuters is, sonder dat die nuus in konteks geplaas word vir mense om hulle verband daarmee te verstaan.
And what about the web? The most popular news sites don't do much better. Last year, Pew and the Colombia J-School analyzed the 14,000 stories that appeared on Google News' front page. And they, in fact, covered the same 24 news events. Similarly, a study in e-content showed that much of global news from U.S. news creators is recycled stories from the AP wire services and Reuters, and don't put things into a context that people can understand their connection to it.
As ons alles saamvoeg kan dit verduidelik waarom universiteitverlaters sowel as minder opgeleide Amerikaners minder weet oor die wêreld as hulle eweknieë van 20 jaar gelede. As jy dink dis omdat ons nie belangstel nie, sou jy verkeerd wees. Amerikaners wat sê dat hulle wêreldnuus meeste van die tyd volg het die laaste paar jaar gegroei tot meer as 50 persent.
So, if you put it all together, this could help explain why today's college graduates, as well as less educated Americans, know less about the world than their counterparts did 20 years ago. And if you think it's simply because we are not interested, you would be wrong. In recent years, Americans who say they closely follow global news most of the time grew to over 50 percent.
Die werklike vraag: Is hierdie verwronge wêreldbeeld wat ons wil hê vir Amerikaners in ons toenemend verbinde wêreld? Ek weet ons kan beter doen. Kan ons die alternatief bekostig? Dankie. (Applous)
The real question: is this distorted worldview what we want for Americans in our increasingly interconnected world? I know we can do better. And can we afford not to? Thank you.