Article 1
Headline: Terror cell 'foot soldier' faces life for Heathrow liquid bomb plot
Section: News
Written by: Felix Allen
Page: 21
Link: Click here
Outline: This story is featured in both the print and online editions of the London Evening Standard. The analysis below is based just on the print version.
The story relates to the trial of the men accused of plotting to blow up airliners as part of what is commonly referred to as 'the liquid bomb plot'.
The story relates to the trial of the men accused of plotting to blow up airliners as part of what is commonly referred to as 'the liquid bomb plot'.
The article starts off with the words "A BRITISH Muslim...", which is obviously designed to leave readers in no doubt about the religious identity of the person. the rest of the opening paragraph doesn't read particularly well either e.g. "...faces life behind bars...in a plot to murder thousands of...passengers..."
The key words in the paragraph for me are "Muslim....murder...thousands...", it doesn't really take a genius to work out what kind of footprint that leaves in readers minds.
There isn't any need to identify the religious background of the person with the opening words of the article unless of course the intention is to create a link between the faith and the intended act.
In a later paragraph one of the accused is described as "...willing to sacrifice himself to inflict mass casualties...provided support after being drawn to radical Islam..." More linkages being created by Allen between Islam and Violence.
After a few paragraphs detailing police activities leading to the arrest the focus is turned to the other suspects, one of whom is described as "...Nabeel Hussain...from Chingford, who once studied Islam in Saudi Arabia..."
Once again this bit of detail has nothing to do with the intended act of violence but it is placed into the article on purpose to create the association between these men who are clearly depicted as dengerous & intent on murdering thousands and the religion of Islam.
This is one of the more blatant examples of an article with the foul stench of Islamophobia running through it. Considering that it's from the London Evening Standard that really shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone.
The story relates to the trial of the men accused of plotting to blow up airliners as part of what is commonly referred to as 'the liquid bomb plot'.
The story relates to the trial of the men accused of plotting to blow up airliners as part of what is commonly referred to as 'the liquid bomb plot'.
The article starts off with the words "A BRITISH Muslim...", which is obviously designed to leave readers in no doubt about the religious identity of the person. the rest of the opening paragraph doesn't read particularly well either e.g. "...faces life behind bars...in a plot to murder thousands of...passengers..."
The key words in the paragraph for me are "Muslim....murder...thousands...", it doesn't really take a genius to work out what kind of footprint that leaves in readers minds.
There isn't any need to identify the religious background of the person with the opening words of the article unless of course the intention is to create a link between the faith and the intended act.
In a later paragraph one of the accused is described as "...willing to sacrifice himself to inflict mass casualties...provided support after being drawn to radical Islam..." More linkages being created by Allen between Islam and Violence.
After a few paragraphs detailing police activities leading to the arrest the focus is turned to the other suspects, one of whom is described as "...Nabeel Hussain...from Chingford, who once studied Islam in Saudi Arabia..."
Once again this bit of detail has nothing to do with the intended act of violence but it is placed into the article on purpose to create the association between these men who are clearly depicted as dengerous & intent on murdering thousands and the religion of Islam.
This is one of the more blatant examples of an article with the foul stench of Islamophobia running through it. Considering that it's from the London Evening Standard that really shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone.
Article Verdict: Negative
Article 2
Headline: Egypt builds giant wall to block Gaza's smuggling tunnels
Section: International
Written by: Ed Harris
Page: 31
Link: Click here
Outline: This story is also featured in both print and online editions of the Standard.
This article is about Egypt's plan to build a steel wall along its border with Gaza.
The article provides factual details about the tunnel such as its statistics and also that the construction hasn't been confirmed by the Egyptian authorities. It also states that the Egyptians are receiving American assistance in building the wall. It describes the objective behind the tunnel as the Egyptians wanting "...to block Palestinian smuggling tunnels into the (Gaza) strip..."
One of the later paragraphs mentions that "...Palestinians smuggle the everyday items they are denied by the blockade. But the Israelis say that the tunnels are also used to smuggle people, weapons, and components to make the rockets that are fired into southern Israel..."
There are a total of 37 words used of which 11 are used to touch upon the blockade. There is no mention of who is imposing the blockade and the fact that it is against International Law. The majority of the words are used to plug the Israeli side of the story and provides details of items being smuggled, which is designed to make readers feel sympathetic to the Israeli viewpoint particularly when weapons are mentioned.
There is however absolutely no mention of Palestinian suffering even though Israeli suffering is alluded to in this paragraph, this prevents a grossly distorted view of the situation on the ground.
The final paragraph is the most misleading part of the whole article, it states that "Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2005, and its border with the coastal enclave is tightly controlled by the military. Egypt controls the southern border of the strip in a security arrangement with Israel"
This is the most inaccurate piece of the whole article. Whilst it is true that Israel withdrew from Gaza, Ed Harris fails to mention that this withdrawal was after Israel had illegally occupied and settled its citizens in Gaza for several decades.This article is about Egypt's plan to build a steel wall along its border with Gaza.
The article provides factual details about the tunnel such as its statistics and also that the construction hasn't been confirmed by the Egyptian authorities. It also states that the Egyptians are receiving American assistance in building the wall. It describes the objective behind the tunnel as the Egyptians wanting "...to block Palestinian smuggling tunnels into the (Gaza) strip..."
One of the later paragraphs mentions that "...Palestinians smuggle the everyday items they are denied by the blockade. But the Israelis say that the tunnels are also used to smuggle people, weapons, and components to make the rockets that are fired into southern Israel..."
There are a total of 37 words used of which 11 are used to touch upon the blockade. There is no mention of who is imposing the blockade and the fact that it is against International Law. The majority of the words are used to plug the Israeli side of the story and provides details of items being smuggled, which is designed to make readers feel sympathetic to the Israeli viewpoint particularly when weapons are mentioned.
There is however absolutely no mention of Palestinian suffering even though Israeli suffering is alluded to in this paragraph, this prevents a grossly distorted view of the situation on the ground.
The final paragraph is the most misleading part of the whole article, it states that "Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2005, and its border with the coastal enclave is tightly controlled by the military. Egypt controls the southern border of the strip in a security arrangement with Israel"
It states the the border is "...tightly controlled by the military..." but fails to mention exactly who that military is even though it mentions that Egypt is in control of the southern border?
The ambiguity and the heavily watered down wording by Ed Harris is a deliberate attempt to protect Israel. The factual way of reporting this is to state that Israel maintains a complete air, land and sea bloackade of Gaza in contravention of International Law. This is deemed as collective punishment against Gaza's people and Israel denies basic necessities to Gaza as part of this blockade, which necessitates the smuggling tunnels.
All in all this is a heavily biased article which may have well have been written by the Israeli Foreign Ministry, it misrepresents the facts and omits key facts, which deny the readers the full story....literally.
This is malicious (Anti-Palestinian), shoddy and irresponsible journalism.
Article Verdict: Negative
No comments:
Post a Comment