BBC and MSNBC

Link 1: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7344038.stm

This first article, from BBC News, reports on Al-Sadr’s influence. He was largely responsible for a lower level of violence recently because of his large following. The article details attacks and fighting that have been going on between his militia and the Iraqi Army, and brings up the killing of his brother-in-law, Al-Nuri. Robert Gates made a statement, saying that Iraqis who participate in the political process are not enemies of the US, but Al-Sadr stated that the US is still his mortal enemy. He is mainly upset that the US is occupying ‘his land.’ This article was straightforward, and gave some background as to the fighting going on recently. The next article offers even more background on the war.

Link 2: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24061832/page/2/

This article is from MSNBC. This one reports that Al-Sadr is bitter over the loss of his aide, Al-Nuri, and gives statements about how much he hates the US and US supporters. After mentioning Al-Sadr a little, the article goes on to describe a lot of fighting that has gone on. It even mentioned that the military used a drone to kill six people. Kind of a scary though, to be killed by a silent, floating robot that you can’t hear coming. The article also gives some history on Al-Sadr, and how an arrest warrant for him (never served) caused lots of violence. Also mentioned was a withdrawal of five brigades (the surge) and lowering the US troops in Iraq to 140,000.

The MSNBC article gave much more information than the BBC article. They were both full of straight facts, but the MSNBC article detailed more of the violence throughout Iraq. The BBC article mostly concentrated on its main point: Al-Sadr is influential and strongly hates the US. The MSNBC article also detailed that, but then went on about attacks and violence. Overall, I would prefer the MSNBC article, so I know more of what’s going on. On the other hand, the BBC article is more to the point, and its goal isn’t to update you on violence, but to get across its main point.