In reading the English version of Al Jazeera online, I observed that the majority of news was based on politics and violence. A top story was over the killing of an Afghan official. In other parts of the world, it mentioned an earthquake in Indonesia which killed many people, as well as killings in Sri Lanka. There didn't seem to be much information in other world issues that involved subjects other than politics or death. In Africa, it mentioned talks of the Rwanda Genocide, whereas Europe's biggest article was on bombings which took place in Greek cities. Pakistani's killed members of the Taliban in Central/South Asia. And there was a section on just the Middle East, which mentioned Iran preparing for nuclear talks. As far as the US goes, Al Jazeera's only bit of information that I found to be relevant was its criticisms in American concerns in Afghanistan. Some other top stories included a Pakistan minister who was wounded in an attack. Also, it seems that Al Jazeera sources the UN alot in their articles. So basically, what I have gathered from this media outlet consists of stories based mainly out of the Middle East, and biased in the sense that they make it out to seem as though Americans are the "bad guys" and that the inhabitants of the Middle East are the ones who deserve the sympathies of the disasters that occur there from day to day.
In Britain and Europe's media source, the Guardian, I found a much friendlier website that didn't leave me to assume immediate favoritism. Right away I noticed how this news source was very different from Al Jazeera in that it had more options and variations of articles. It offered information in many categories, such as education, literature, entertainment, health, politics, business, athletics and technology. The top stories were not all about politics and violence linked to the ongoing war in the Middle East, opposite of Al Jazeera's top articles. In comparison to Al Jazeera, the Guardian also had far more information on the US, even though I didn't take it to be biased. In fact, I took the Guardian's article on the CIA unlawfully experimenting on prisoners to be quite opposite of biased. Overall, I'd agree that the Guardian was a better source of information than Al Jazeera.
As an online US news source, I read over the New York Times. Although I was sure to see an array of international news, I was surprised to see mostly US news. Some of the top stories were on things happening in individual states. The home page was like the Guardian in that it didn't give off many top stories of violence, unlike Al Jazeera. Like the Guardian, the NY Times offered various articles on various subjects. However, it wasn't as international as I had hoped to see for NY Times standards. The top articles were on politics and business within the US. And the world news was mostly on the war in the Middle East. Towards the bottom of the home page, there were a few articles about Asia. Like Al Jazeera, the NY Times was completely biased as a media source and it is obvious to me that it wants Americans to look on the Middle East negatively and on the US positively.
As an American myself, I can only agree that, I too, am quite biased and will tend to believe the one-sided stories I read in the newspaper, as well as online. I have made this realization because of this assignment. Fortunately, now I feel as if I can read an article and look past the words and favoritism to form a better opinion of it myself, as an individual, without all the bells and whistles added by the media.
No comments:
Post a Comment