http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-16458341
Personalisation: Well, this article definitely has a major element of personalisation. Because, no foreign journalists are allowed into Syria, news agencies rely on ordinary people's eyewitness accounts and mobile phone footage and accept all of that unverified information as a credible source. A lot of analysts have criticized the news agencies for using these unverified sources.
Dramatization: Yes, the article is very dramatised. There is a lot of bias in favour of the opposition, because the country where BBC is based in supports the opposition in Syria. Therefore, the main focus in the article is on the civilian and opposition casualties and the article makes little mention of the casualties sustained by the security forces which are attacked everyday by the foreign funded Free "Syrian" Army, which consists of mostly mercenaries anyway.
Fragmentation: There is fragmentation in the article as well. The BBC article chooses to ignore the back story of the events and the reasons that cause the Syrian government into using military action (foreign attempts to destabilize the country). It only focuses on the current events, death of innocent civilians (which were probably killed by foreign mercenaries rather than the Syrian army anyway).
Authority-Disorder: YES! The BBC article blames all of the aforementioned events on the Syrian president. BBC chooses not to differentiate between the opposition caused damage and government caused damage, instead its all Assad's fault and therefore the article helps in making him look like a villain.
--------------------------------------------------< >------------------------------------------------------
Did the article follow the prescribed list of types of information bias?
- Yes, the article does follow all of the informational bias as you can see above.
How did "informational bias" affect the way you perceived the news story?
- Well not really. I have a substantially deep knowledge of the issue, which I got from multiple reliable sources, so all of the bias in the article had no effect on me. instead it further reinforced my current views on the situation in Syria.
How do these parameters affect which stories make it into print and which don't?
- There is a really big effect. In this article's case, if the journalist started talking about all of the details and analysing both sides of the argument, almost no one would read the article. Instead, it is far more effective to say what people want to hear (or at least what the news agency thinks people want to hear) and blame the current Syrian government for all the problems in the country, while making the opposition look like victims. This is clearly visible in the fact that BBC is currently criticising the Arab League observers for not being able to find any big violations by the government in Syria. But just over a 2 weeks ago, before the observers got on site, BBC was their biggest supporter and friend. It is clearly visible that the only articles that get published are the ones that match the parameters et forward by the chief editor and people in power
Personalisation: Well, this article definitely has a major element of personalisation. Because, no foreign journalists are allowed into Syria, news agencies rely on ordinary people's eyewitness accounts and mobile phone footage and accept all of that unverified information as a credible source. A lot of analysts have criticized the news agencies for using these unverified sources.
Dramatization: Yes, the article is very dramatised. There is a lot of bias in favour of the opposition, because the country where BBC is based in supports the opposition in Syria. Therefore, the main focus in the article is on the civilian and opposition casualties and the article makes little mention of the casualties sustained by the security forces which are attacked everyday by the foreign funded Free "Syrian" Army, which consists of mostly mercenaries anyway.
Fragmentation: There is fragmentation in the article as well. The BBC article chooses to ignore the back story of the events and the reasons that cause the Syrian government into using military action (foreign attempts to destabilize the country). It only focuses on the current events, death of innocent civilians (which were probably killed by foreign mercenaries rather than the Syrian army anyway).
Authority-Disorder: YES! The BBC article blames all of the aforementioned events on the Syrian president. BBC chooses not to differentiate between the opposition caused damage and government caused damage, instead its all Assad's fault and therefore the article helps in making him look like a villain.
--------------------------------------------------< >------------------------------------------------------
Did the article follow the prescribed list of types of information bias?
- Yes, the article does follow all of the informational bias as you can see above.
How did "informational bias" affect the way you perceived the news story?
- Well not really. I have a substantially deep knowledge of the issue, which I got from multiple reliable sources, so all of the bias in the article had no effect on me. instead it further reinforced my current views on the situation in Syria.
How do these parameters affect which stories make it into print and which don't?
- There is a really big effect. In this article's case, if the journalist started talking about all of the details and analysing both sides of the argument, almost no one would read the article. Instead, it is far more effective to say what people want to hear (or at least what the news agency thinks people want to hear) and blame the current Syrian government for all the problems in the country, while making the opposition look like victims. This is clearly visible in the fact that BBC is currently criticising the Arab League observers for not being able to find any big violations by the government in Syria. But just over a 2 weeks ago, before the observers got on site, BBC was their biggest supporter and friend. It is clearly visible that the only articles that get published are the ones that match the parameters et forward by the chief editor and people in power
No comments:
Post a Comment