Sociology Syria
Isabella Luna
October 10, 2013
Sociology 100
News Analysis: Syria The violence in Syria began in March of 2011, and the Middle Eastern country has been crippled by a brutal civil war ever since. Since then, the United Nations estimates that more than 100,000 people have died during the ongoing clashes between President Bashar Al-Assad’s government and rebel forces who want him out, and estimates that more than two million people have fled Syria to neighboring countries, most of them being children. There has also been increasing pressure on the international community to act after it emerged that chemical weapons were being used in the war. During this essay I will analyze the differences in the portrayal of the current political and sociological situation of the war depending on the source whose reporting it. The New York Times is an extremely liberal newspaper, which bases itself on immediate coverage of the most important issues in today’s world with “no frills.” A clear example of this would be the newspapers past reporting of wikileaks, where no information, no matter how controversial or damaging to the American government it was, went unreported. The New York Times has continuously been reporting the war in Syria and has most recently emphasized the countries chemical warfare program. Given the newspapers political standpoint, it would be easy to state that the information provided in their articles will be accurate since the journalists are not “held back” by the extremity or controversy their topics may arise. While discussing the severity of the chemical weapons the country owns, journalist Michael R. Gordon states in an editorial, “the head of the international watchdog overseeing the destruction of Syria’s chemical weapons arsenal said Wednesday that a team of 15 inspectors had begun to visit sites and that the Syrian authorities had been ‘quite constructive’ and ‘cooperative.’” This is controversial given that Americans normally view Middle
October 10, 2013
Sociology 100
News Analysis: Syria The violence in Syria began in March of 2011, and the Middle Eastern country has been crippled by a brutal civil war ever since. Since then, the United Nations estimates that more than 100,000 people have died during the ongoing clashes between President Bashar Al-Assad’s government and rebel forces who want him out, and estimates that more than two million people have fled Syria to neighboring countries, most of them being children. There has also been increasing pressure on the international community to act after it emerged that chemical weapons were being used in the war. During this essay I will analyze the differences in the portrayal of the current political and sociological situation of the war depending on the source whose reporting it. The New York Times is an extremely liberal newspaper, which bases itself on immediate coverage of the most important issues in today’s world with “no frills.” A clear example of this would be the newspapers past reporting of wikileaks, where no information, no matter how controversial or damaging to the American government it was, went unreported. The New York Times has continuously been reporting the war in Syria and has most recently emphasized the countries chemical warfare program. Given the newspapers political standpoint, it would be easy to state that the information provided in their articles will be accurate since the journalists are not “held back” by the extremity or controversy their topics may arise. While discussing the severity of the chemical weapons the country owns, journalist Michael R. Gordon states in an editorial, “the head of the international watchdog overseeing the destruction of Syria’s chemical weapons arsenal said Wednesday that a team of 15 inspectors had begun to visit sites and that the Syrian authorities had been ‘quite constructive’ and ‘cooperative.’” This is controversial given that Americans normally view Middle