The two journals I chose to review for this article were the previously referenced Arab News, and The English Defense League's website. Since the attacks were carried out to gain recognition for attacker Anders Breivik's anti-multiculturalist, and specifically anti-Islamist views, I thought it appropriate to investigate on how Arab newspapers were reporting the massacre. The English Defense League on the other hand is a political group based in the U.K., whose political views are aligned with Breivik's.
Despite the diversity of the journals, the was a unanimous condemnation of the attacks, which even the far-right English Defense League described as "cowardly". However, while condemning extremism and terrorism, the group twisted the story into further support of anti-Islamism, decreeing that attacks like this one were more likely to come from Muslims in the future.
The New York Times, BBC, USA Today, and Arab news, did not bring any focus to the papers' political agendas, and focused more on the political motivations behind the massacre and the details of the event and its subsequent investigation. One disparity I noticed was that unlike its Western counterparts, on Arab news the massacre was not the most popular story. Arab news also didn't have nearly the same quantity of articles regarding the matter as the Western newspapers. With the lack of articles comes almost a relative disinterest in the attacker himself, whose character is under fierce examination by the Western newspapers.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.