Linguistic analysis of two articles with the same topics: hackers
This article analyses from a linguistic point of view the use of language in two articles covering the same topic: hackers. It is not our intention to discuss the writers’ background and experience regarding the specific topic, but rather their choice of language and the messages they wanted to express. We have preferred to present our analysis of the two texts in parallel, because we would then have the possibility of easily underlying the differences in both opinion and style that the two articles aim to convey.
1. Introduction
This paper analyses from a linguistic point of view the use of language in two articles covering the same topic: hackers. Romania gains reputation as nexus of cybercrime by William J. Kole was published in the Bangkok Post on October 28, 2003 (thenceforth referred to as ‘the first article’), while US government wants a few good hackers by Robert Lemos was published on-line by an Internet technology news agency called ZDNet on July 16, 2001 (thenceforth referred to as ‘the second article’).
Taking into consideration the years in which the two articles were written and the fact that the two authors probably had no previous knowledge of each other’s intention of writing on the same topic, it is not our intention to discuss the writers’ background and experience regarding the topic, but rather their choice of language and the messages they wanted to express. We have preferred to present our analysis of the two texts in parallel, because we had thus the possibility of better underlying the differences in both opinion and style that the two articles conveyed.
READ MORE: Writer Identity in Academic Writing
2. Rubric
The two articles present a controversial topic that has become an international problem. This topic refers to that part of computer and Internet users who have become highly proficient in exploiting the shortcomings of the World Wide Web. While the first article makes a definite stance against these users, generically called hackers, the second one presents the positive side of this new underground culture.
The rubric where the first article was published is entitled FOCUS / CRIMINALS LOG ON. Thus, from the very beginning the reader has a hint about what the article is about, i.e. Internet crime. While the lexical item ‘focus’ is a neutral word used by journalists when writing articles that concentrate their main interest on a specific problem, the other words make the reader more curious, and maybe more willing to go on reading the article.
In a world obsessed by violence with all the news stations and agencies presenting shocking events like wars, terrorist attacks, disasters, and various crimes it is not uncommon for an article to express opinions about criminals. But, in our case, the writer of the first article focuses on a specific type of crime, nicely suggested in the rubric: CRIMINALS LOG ON. The verbal phrase ‘log on’ immediately connects our thoughts with the world of computers and Internet. Thus, the reader presupposes what the article is about, i.e. people who commit crimes using computers and the Internet.
An important psychological factor is the choice of layout and script. Although written with a small font size, the publishers used upper-case letters visibly highlighted by the use of bold style, thus drawing the attention of the reader on this specific article. It is also important to mention the fact that the article was published on the “Opinion & Analysis” page of the Bangkok Post, thus the content of the article is the writer’s personal opinion and not the publishers’ view regarding this topic. But still, it is the publishing team who decided to place the article on the upper part of the page so as to draw direct attention from the reader.
Although the second article was published on the Internet, we can still identify all the elements that we have discussed in the previous paragraphs regarding the article from the Bangkok Post. On the main site there are different rubrics that link the reader to topics that deal with a specific problem. One of the rubrics (links) that can be found on the website of the Internet technology news agency ZDNet is News, which is just a super-ordination. The page displays other rubrics that go even further in details, such as Hardware, Software, Communications, Internet, etc.
The second article was listed under the rubric Security. It is also important to mention the fact that the article was published on the “News” page of the site, thus the content of the article is not the writer’s personal opinion, but real facts that can be verified. From these two links (News –> Security) that the readers can access, s/he expects to find articles related to ways of improving the security of computers while connected to Internet. In other words, readers are interested in finding ways of fighting back against the hackers.
A web page is different from the actual page of a newspaper, but it uses the same techniques when dealing with layout and font style. Maybe on the Internet the layout of an on-line newspaper can be even more attractive if we keep in mind that there is an almost unlimited option of colours, and different alternative ways of drawing the readers’ attention: flashing words, linking boxes, animation, sound, etc. So, it was very easy to find the kind of article that we were looking for.
Although printed / uploaded on two different means of interaction (newspaper and Internet) the two articles follow the ‘serious’ structure of news reporting.
READ MORE: A birds-eye-view presentation of critical pedagogy
3. Headline
The first article has a very powerful headline: Romania gains reputation as nexus of cybercrime. It is an efficient way of connecting the article to the topic suggested in the rubric. The use of language and vocabulary in this headline has the purpose of convincing the reader that the article will be an interesting and juicy piece of writing to read. The big font size and the bold style of writing are two other factors which draw the reader’s attention.
The writer uses strong and seemingly complicated words in order to demonstrate for the reader the gravity of the topic. The technique used when writing this headline has its own purpose. There are all the elements of a sentence, but the writer wants to preserve it as a headline, thus the missing full stop. The advantage of using sentences when writing headlines is that the author is thus able to express a complete thought, without any place for interpretation. In this case it uses the lexical item ‘as’ which stands as a connector between the first and the second part of the sentence.
Both parts of the sentence could have been a good headline for the article: Romania gains reputation and Nexus of cybercrime, but in these cases the reader could have speculated the message, as having a positive connotation (the first part) or a negative one (the second part). But the reader doesn’t have such a liberty. The writer wants to make a stand from the very beginning, i.e. the article will present the negative side of the topic. It reinforces the rubric, but at the same time adding new elements.
The use of vocabulary is also very suggestive. The words ‘nexus’ and ‘cybercrime’ have the same or similar meaning conveyed in ‘criminals log on’ from the rubric. The word ‘nexus,’ which stands for link or connection, sounds rather sophisticated, but it perfectly fits the topic. ‘Cybercrime’ definitely hints at the use of computers in order to commit crimes, but it also implies a very proficient way of doing it by the use of ‘cyber’ which makes us think of high-tech devices. In a world obsessed by terrorism the reader might even connect the headline with terrorist activities (nexus + crime = terrorism). The first part of the headline introduces the name of the country, i.e. Romania. The author implies that this country is somehow responsible for such a threat by using the words ‘gains’ and ‘reputation’.
The first article has a very strong headline in which the author chooses to use specialized words in order to pose as an authority and be more convincing.
The headline of the second article follows the same pattern. US government wants a few good hackers is the author’s choice for the headline of an article that is listed under a rubric concerned with Security. The link between the rubric and the headline is striking. We automatically and unconsciously connect the word ‘government’ in the headline with ‘security’ in the rubric. The font size is bigger than the size used to write the rubric and the bold style of writing helps the reader to locate the beginning of the article on the screen.
Thus, the reader can concentrate only on the message of the article, and not on the other advertisements that are part of the website. The author used the format of sentence when writing the headline in order to make his stance. As soon as we read the headline of this article we know that the writer will present the positive side of the problem. If splitting the headline in two gives us two possible headlines, the reader has enough room for interpretation. A headline like US government and hackers might have both a positive and negative connotation while A few good hackers makes the reader think positively about the main topic.
The vocabulary the author uses for the second article is a way of preparing the reader for what the article deals with. The word ‘hackers’ makes us think of the computer world and Internet. The writer also wants to disconnect the reader from the stereotype that the word hacker has created. ‘Good’ thus becomes an adjective for ‘hackers’, association rarely seen in other articles that deal with this topic. In order to impose authority, the writer uses the noun phrase ‘US government’, thus introducing not only the name of the country where the events take place, but also a high institution that focuses its interest on the subject. The verb that connects the first part of the headline (sentence) with the second part is ‘wants,’ implying an official need of talented computer users.
If we were asked to choose only one article to read just by reading the rubrics and headlines we would definitely go for the first one. It is the implication of words connected to violence that would raise our interest.
READ MORE: Using the Four Resource Model to Map Out Plans for a Literacy Lessons
4. Lead
The lead of the first article answers the questions to the 4w’s – what?, when?, where? and how?: Computer savvy young Romanians are causing havoc across the world and often earn huge profits from extortion and swindles. What? Young Romanians good at computers. When? The use of present tense continuous suggests that they are in the process of doing this action at this very moment, thus underlying the fact that they are a present threat to society. Where? Across the world. How? By extortion and cheating.
We presuppose they are using the Internet in order to commit their crimes. This presupposition is based on the already mentioned fact that they are good at computers. However, the lead stops short of answering the question why?, thus proving that the author is a good professional. The lead in its italicized form and decorative typeface gives the reader the feeling that the message is speech-like, thus trying to build a connection between the writer and the reader.
The vocabulary used is again very powerful. The words the author chooses creates the necessary emotive excitation that will eventually make us go on reading. For example: ‘are causing havoc’, ‘earn huge profits’, ‘extortion and swindles’. All these phrases raise the readers’ interest. The young Romanians are clearly identified with the source of such criminal behaviour. This is where the language used is entirely biased. The author immediately tries to make readers believe that all young Romanians who are good at computer are, at the same time, all crooks.
The lead of the second article also answers the 4ws: At the DefCon hacker conference in Las Vegas this week, hackers have found themselves courted by the Feds. What? The Hackers. When? This week. Where? At the DefCon hacker conference in Las Vegas. How? By being courted by the FBI (Federal Bureau of Investigation). The style and size of the text in the lead is the same as the style used in the rest of the article but we can notice the use of bold in order to separate the lead from the body of the article.
The vocabulary used in this lead is very warm and friendly. It is clear and hasn’t got any biased information like the lead of the first article. We already have the feeling that the tone of the article will not be a harsh one, but mild and amiable. The clearest example is the word “courted” which implies a gentle handling of the issue. The presence of the words “conference” and “Feds” make the reader realize that the article debates a serious problem.
READ MORE: 6 Educational Websites to Learn Free of Cost
5. The Writers
Both writers of the two articles have been present in the country where the events took place. This is explicitly underlined under the names of each writer. The writer of the first article has written the article while in Bucharest (the capital city of Romania), while the writer of the second article has written the article while in the United States of America. It is important to mention the fact that while the writer of the second article is American, the writer of the first article is not Romanian. Thus, the chance of misunderstandings and biased information is higher in the case of the first article, as it was written by an outsider.
READ MORE: Stylistic analysis of a fragment from “Kokoro” by Natsume Soseki
6. Selection of info and vocabulary. Biased info. Labeling and name-calling. Emotive language. Opinions and facts. Stereotyping. Quoting. Examples.
The selection of info and vocabulary in the first article is biased. The writer organized each paragraph in such a way so as to demonstrate the potential threat that the Romanian hackers represent to world security. In his arguments, he uses emotive language that reflects his own opinions.
In order to make the article juicier the writer uses different linguistic devices, such as labeling and name-calling. A few examples go like this: the hackers are “a bold menace in the shadowy world of cybercrime” – meaning that not only are they a threat to society, but they are also part of a mysterious criminal underground culture. The hackers also “extort” money and information and have the ability to “roam freely around the server” – giving the reader the impression that they are like vandals. The hackers are also specifically called: “extortionist,” “cybercriminals,” “a new breed” and “a threat.”
The hackers are also associated with the world of terrorism. The author is trying to imply that they might unleash a “Sept 11 of cybercrime.” This statement is biased and not supported by any arguments or evidence. The hackers have never tried to physically harm any of their cyber targets.
Further on, the hackers are considered “a loosely organized group but increasingly aggressive network… conspiring with accomplices…” – in this example, the writer uses emotive language unsupported by facts, only by suppositions and by contorting the information given by the Romanian authorities. The hackers helped by “accomplices in Europe and the United States … steal millions of dollars… by defrauding consumers… extorting cash… hacking into their system”. Although these examples are only from the first part of the article, the reader has already either been trapped into the writer’s web, and thus takes a stance against all the Romanian young computer users or detaches him/herself from the emotional language used and tries to extract just the facts and unbiased information.
The way the writer decided to organize and select his info is another sign that he wanted to demonize as much as possible the Romanian hackers. Thus, Romanians are compared with other Eastern European counties such as Russia, Bulgaria, Poland and Slovenia which already have, or previously had,a bad reputation in the West due to economical and political problems.
The most outrageous device used by the writer in order to convince his readers is the use of stereotyping. He presents the history of Romania as being a faulted one due to “the former regime, when the late dictator Nicolae Ceausescu saw computers as a way to advance communist ideology”. It is strange how the author decided to distort historical facts in order to suit his own agenda. He forgot that at a point, all Eastern European countries tried to keep up with Western technology, as the entire world did. It is obviously not a dictator’s fault that Romanians are intelligent people. The first stereotype in this article lies in the belief that the writer considers everything that Ceausescu had initiated was a mistake.
The second stereotype is the belief that all Romanians are blood sucking vampires: “a dark side: internet vampires who prey on victims half a world away.” The words the author uses have a profound impact on the common reader. What the writer implies is that Romania has never got rid of vampires and now they have adapted to the modern world and redirected their bloody fangs. Although it might have been intended as a metaphor, it still remains an obvious stereotype. The writer twice uses the noun phrase “dark side” when referring to the world of hackers, a clear comparison with the Dark Ages, Count Dracula and vampires.
The author does his best in stereotyping Romanians and mentions Transylvania as an area infected by hackers, a clear reference to Dracula’s story. The final two paragraphs of the first article contain the following key words: “cybercriminals”, “poltergeist” and “cryptically,” which is a clear indication of what the Romanian hackers should be identified with.
In order to make his article more authoritative, the writer clusters quotes from different sources:
- experts, i.e. the head of the FBI’s office in Bucharest, the Chief Inspector of Romanian’s national police, and Romanian lawmakers and programmers;
- reports written by well known institutions, i.e. the US-based Internet Fraud Complaint Centre, the National White Collar Crime Centre, and Romanian data securing companies.
These quotes have the purpose of giving the article an official stance. They are artfully blended within the text of the article so that the reader might believe that officials also share the stated opinions.
The writer uses three verifiable examples of frauds committed by Romanian hackers that stand out to support the general concern regarding this topic.
The tone of the second article is milder and presents the positive side of having intelligent computer users. We could say that it is biased in the sense that presents only one side of the problem, but the writer’s selection of info and vocabulary makes the second article a piece of news. Thus, it is not the writer’s own opinion that it is being presented, but just the facts.
Unlike the first article, the writer does not use labeling and name calling, but instead he uses a collection of positive words that throw a different light on the world of hackers.
A few examples are:
- verbs: “to help”, “illuminated the problems”, “appealed to hackers”, “there is… talent”, “let’s put the talent to good use”, “continue the discussion”, “to inquire about jobs”, “to give folks an alternative”, “to educate would-be hackers”, “can work for our… government agencies”, “watch each other’s back”, “getting applause in return”;
- adjectives: “positive alternative”, “collegial meeting of minds”, “a solid code of ethics for cyberspace”, “good cyber citizens”;
- adverbs: “the chats afterwards to be rewarding”, “hackers…acted responsible and ethically”, “the crowd seemed older, more mature and technical”;
- possessives: “the crowd’s patriotism”.
It is clear from the above examples that in the second article the hackers are the ‘good guys.’ The writer tries to make the reader sympathize with the hackers’ cause by using emotive language. However, all the cases of emotive language are quotes from different authorities. For example the word “folks” appears for a couple of times and it refers to the hackers, thus considering them as equal partners of the society.
The number of quotes is bigger in the second article than those found in the first one. This is also another proof that the writer used the allocated space to convey what others believe, and were not his own opinions. The quotes, like in the first article, are only from authoritative sources, e.g.:
- the supervisory special agent for the DoD (Department of Defense);
- the Chief of Staff for the DoD’s Directorate of Information Assurance in the Command, Control, Communications and Intelligence section;
- the director of the Interagency OPSEC Support Staff.
The writer doesn’t use specific examples of damages committed by hackers, but he presents the threat that enemies from outside the US represent to the security of the Americans.
READ MORE: Voices of the Stinky Cheese Man: A Comparison Study of Two Postmodern Picture Books
7. Conclusion
The two articles analyzed in this paper tackle the same topic from two very different perspectives. It is possible that they both have relevance in the world of information. It is up to the reader to decide what side s/he should agree with and support. Both articles are easy to read. While the first one seems more enjoyable, due to the writer’s own opinions, the second one seems more dull and lacking of any interest, due to the author’s more detached writing style.
Their importance only comes once the reader has already made up his/her mind regarding the purpose of his/her decision in reading such an article. If it is to look for opinions, then the first article better suits his/her purpose. However, if it is to find out facts, then s/he should go for the second article.
