W 059 F

INTRODUCTION:
The number of the days went by since I was born, is six thousand seven hundred and twenty-two. On that day, on 21st of June, 1979 several happenings occurred. I try to recall them according to two daily papers. The one is Népszabadság which was the paper of the leader party called MSZMP, and the other is Népszava published by the Hungarian Trades Union. These were daily papers which conveyed the new stories to people. Sometimes the stories were published in both papers. These articles had similarities and differences, which I will examine as the focus of my paper. But what does news mean? We readers who get these papers in our hand every day are entitled to ask it.

It is hard to explain. According to Philip Grahan, the American newspaper publisher: ”News is the first draft of history” (1996,p.8). Evelyn Waugh the British novelist wrote an other definition: ”News is what a chap who does not care much about anything wants to read. And it is only news until he has read it. After that it is died.” (1996,p.8).

That Thursday was an eventful day. János Kádár, the leader of MSZMP party, came back from Sofia, after visiting the Institute which designed the electric- and motor-driven trolleys. In Vienna the United States of America and the Soviet Union signed the Salt II agreement. Some taxi drivers beat two passengers for six forints, but the drivers could not escape from the police.

METHOD:
I took a closer look at the articles choosing three main topics: politics, economics and sport. I showed the articles in connection with the topics from both papers and made a comparison between them. I looked at the differences between the headlines, which called the reader's attention more effectively, and what were the features of them. My aim was to find which paper got closer to the reader by examining the characteristics of the style and the language. Then I checked the content of the articles, what the differences and the similarities were between them. In order to know which articles were the most important I studied the location of them in both papers.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION:
The headlines of both papers referred to average people, which showed that Népsabadság and Népszava wanted to convey, to tell something to them. The date, price and the table of contains occurred in the headlines of the papers. The heading of Népszabadság and Népszava were nearly similar; both called the readers’ attention in the same way. The price was located to a more centred position in Népszabadság, while in the other paper it was on the left side. The readers did not confront it at the first sight. Both newspapers showed the following sentence on the first page: ”Világ proletárjai egyesüljetek”. It was an important slogan at the time.

POLITICS:
Népszava and Népszabadság considered the political events important, because the news on this topic were on the first page. Usually in a newspaper the most significant stories come to the front page, and the less important ones follow them on the next pages.

Let us take a look at what is on the title page of Népszabadság and Népszava.

János Kádár’s returning from Sofia was the most striking article on the front page of both papers. This contribution was the best worthy to take it on the title sheet. People were supposed to read it first as the most significant event. Probably these were not only the first page of Népszabadság and Népszava on which these news appeared. Both papers published the picture of the politicians’ arrival. These pictures were quite similar, but in Népszava this was bigger, and János Kádár seemed to be happier on it. His smile could be seen clearly on the picture. The heading of the article was longer in Népszava and told more about the happenings: ”Hazaérkezett Bulgáriából a Kádár János vezette magyar párt- és kormányküldöttség” (1979, June 21, p. 1). Even the article (following the heading) was more informative, because it showed the progress of events and the politicians’ attitude towards it: ”Kádár János nagy érdeklõdéssel figyelte a gépeket ‘gyötrõ’ próbapadokat : minden targoncát, mielõtt az intézetet elhagyja alapos terheléssel vizsgáztatnak. (”Hazaérkezett Bulgáriából, 1979, June 21, p.1). Whereas in Népszabadság the journalist is more objective: ”... a párt központi bizottsága elsõ titkárának, az államtanács elnökének társaságában Szófia elektromos- és motorostargonca-tervezõ intézetét látogatta meg.” (Kádár János hazaérkezett Szófiából, 1979, June 21, p. 1)
Both contributions listed the names of the people who participated.
The articles in Népszabadság and in Népszava had subtitles; these were different:
In Népszabadság:” Közös közlemény jelent meg a két delegáció tárgyalásáról
Magyar-bolgár kulturális és tudományon megállapodást írtak alá” (Kádár János hazaérkezett Szófiából, 1979, June 21, p. 1).
In Népszava: ”Kulturális és tudományos együttmûködési egyezményt írtak alá
Közlemény a tárgyalásokról” (Hazaérkezett Bulgáriából, 1979, June 21, p. 1).

The difference is striking, which is not in the language but in the order of sentences. The editor of Népszabadság considered the announcement more significant than the agreement. Obviously he or she wanted to call the readers’ attention to the communication. This could be read on the third page. Both papers published the announcements on the same page. The texts of them were the same. For the first sight the communications seemed to be unreadable, because of the form of the articles. They were published without any editing. The columns were thin, and there were not any subtitles, but these were numbers indicating the main parts of the texts.

The heading of the announcements were not the same. In Népszabadság only the word ”Közlemény” (1979, June 21, p. 3) were highlighted, and there was a subtitle. The reader could find it in the other paper as well, but the whole headline was highlighted.

There was one more political event which appeared on the front page of both papers. This was about the SALT II contract, signed by the United States of America and the Soviet Union. SALT II referred to the restriction of manufacture of arms. The articles’ positions were under the contribution of Hungarian-Bulgier agreement. This was not only positional, but semantic subordination. The titles of the articles were unlike.

The one published in Népszabadság referred to the Prime Ministers who commented the contract. In Népszava the title related only to the General Stuff of Washington. The second part of the article was perfectly similar to the contribution published on the second page of Népszabadság. The paper of the MSZMP printed more two articles on SALT II. One of which referred to the Pravda, a Soviet newspaper, the other pointed to an American paper, the New York Times. The notice tackled the contract from the American and the Soviet point of view. They analysed the attitude of them.

ECONOMICS:
The economic articles got less place than the political events in the papers. These contributions usually went in the background of political articles because they were not so determining. However, economics represented a substantial body in Népszabadság and in Népszava too. In the paper of the leader party there were an article about after-seed. It described that the failure of the crops, which was caused by the big drought, had to be replaced by after-seed. The contribution got room on the left side of the first page. The editor considered it one of the most important questions, but there were no articles about that theme in Népszava. The location and the importance of the news were considered in the same way until this point. The paper of the Hungarian Trades Union put the article about the summer of the pioneers to the similar place (on the left of the first page).

pioneers) were parallel in the different papers, but the content was not in agreement.
”Vízfogyasztás az NDK-ban” (1979, June 21, p. 4) was the title of the other economic article published in the Népszabadság .This was on the 4th page between two other ones. The three contributions formed a unit under the headline: ”A szocializnus országaiból”(1979, June 21, p. 4).
Such unit could not be found in the paper of the Hungarian Trades Union. The articles about economic problems were spread about. Népszava referred to the problem of the short of water in GDR too, but in more briefly form. The editor of Népszava considered this problem less significant, because he or she put it on the seventh page and set it by smaller letters.
This short article did not consist of important data either, while Népszabadság emphasised the details. I present them in the 1st table.

CONSUMPTION OF WATER IN GDR

Person/day Person/day in drought
Pumped 25 litres 50 litres
In an old flat 40-70 litres 80-140 litres
In a modern flat 200 litres 400 litres

Table 1: ”Vízfogyasztás az NDK-ban” (1979, June 21, p. 4)

SPORT:
Both papers contained the description of the sportaktiva, and devoted more than a half page to that. The articles were about the Országos kommunista sportaktíva, which surveyed the situation and the perspectives of the Hungarian sport. The contributions wrote that the athletes should have preserved the achieved sport successes, and utilized their opportunities. The paper of MSZMP referred to it as a political event on page five. Népszava considered it as a sport event under the highlighted headline: ”SPORT”(1979, June 21, p. 5). The title of the articles were different:

In the paper of the leader party: ”Váljék életvitellé a testedzés” (1979, June 21, p. 5),
in Népszava: ”Országos kommunista sportaktíva”(1979, June 21, p. 9).

In the paper of the Hungarian Trades Union the title inspired the reader. The one (title) of the other article declared the facts objectively. Under the objective heading, there were several subtitles and even those had subtitles. The structure of the article in Népszava was not so complicated, the contribution had only one headline and several subtitles. The ones published in Népszabadság and Népszava were unlike. These were the following:

In the paper of the Hungarian Trades Union :”A testnevelés és a sport szolgálja jobban a szocialista ember formálását” , ”Munkahelyi olimpia 1980-tól” (Országos Kommunista Sportaktiva, 1979, June 21, p. 9).

In Népszabadság: ”Nagyobb figyelem a tömegsportra” , ”Következetesség és figyelem” (Váljék életvitellé a testedzés, 1979, June 21, p. 5).The latter ones gave perspective; they wanted to find the solution to the problems of Hungarian sport.

CONCLUSION:
I have presented the differences between the content , the language and the style of the articles. I found that Népszava was more informal. The language concentrated on not only the objective events, but also those that were not so important from a political point of view. The language brought the events closer to the reader.

By examining the differences and the similarities between the articles I tried to approach the events from various stand points. In some cases I did not find any differences between the contributions, so I did not manage to find the different aspects, but it was exciting to see that both papers covered some events from the same direction.

I chose this theme for my research paper because I wanted to know more about the day I was born. I wanted to see how other people were thinking about this day through the papers. Until this time I considered my birthday important only for me, and I could not insert a perspective. Now I see that this day was not only the starting point of my life, but also a significant day in terms of politics, economics and sport as well.