A Message of Hope vs. a Message of Defeat

The recent military action in Basra, an oil rich city in Iraq, has produced much debate about Shi’ite Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki’s efforts to disarm Sadrist militia. Shi’ite parties and Sadrist militias have been battling for power in Basra for many years. Sadr, the leader of the militia “gang members” is infamous for boycotting elections in 2005 and is a known opposer of the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council. On March 25, 2008, Sadr ordered his militia army to attach Iraqi security forces. After a week long effort by the Iraqi security forces to disarm the militia insurgents, fighting has ceased. While some believe that the city of Basra is fairly calm and stable, others are fearful for future attacks.

There seems to be much difference in opinions about the effectiveness of the military actions, which can be observed by reading two articles, from different sources. The first article that I found from CNN is titled, “Iraqi city appears relatively calm.” The second was from Reuters AlertNet titled “Residents in Iraq’s Basra fear worse violence.” It is interesting to note how much these articles differ from their titles alone. The CNN article gives off a sense of victory, while the Reuter’s article sends a message of defeat. CNN’s article’s main point is now that the violence has ceased, the city is calm, with no threat of violence in the near future. It quotes a police officer saying that “despite the reports of ongoing sporadic clashes, a relative peace is returning to Basra.” It states that businesses are reopening and life is going back to normal. The Reuter’s article is contrastingly different because it does not convey an optimistic message for the city of Basra. Instead, it quotes people saying that Maliki did not achieve anything because the insurgents did not give up their weapons. The author of this article, Aref Mohammed, says that “Iraqis in the southern city of Basra . . . fear worse violence is to come.” Furthermore, he goes on to include the death toll for the operation. 210 fatalities and 600 wounded. The CNN article does not mention these figures, which helps bias their article with a more optimistic tone. Perhaps the biggest discrepancy between the articles is that the CNN article says that “they [referring to militia] lost control and ran away leaving their weapons on the street.” The Reuter’s article quotes someone saying that Maliki did not disarm the insurgents. Although the CNN article is biased, it is a lot more neutral than the Reuters article, because the Reuters article does not mention that some people are optimistic about the operation. The CNN article provides a more unbiased undertone in the end when it mentions that although Basra seems relatively peaceful and stable, some are not convinced and think that more violence is inevitable.

Comparison of these two articles provides a perfect example of how the media can manipulate facts in order to communicate their intended message. Without reading both articles, my opinion would have been automatically made biased based on what I read. Therefore, it is important to always find a second source, in order to be able to make an educated opinion about a particular topic.

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L02833318.htm - Reuters AlertNet article

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/04/02/iraq.main/index.html - CNN article