Story comparison

Again, because I like this sort of thing, let's compare some stories in the media today:

I first noticed that the BBC had an article entitled "Ex-Iraq hostages forgive their captors" The first two paragraphs of the online article read:

Three peace campaigners who were taken hostage say they "unconditionally" forgive their Iraqi captors.

Briton Norman Kember and Canadians James Loney and Harmeet Singh Sooden said they opposed the death penalty for the hostage-takers.

The article also quotes the men as requesting "all possible leniency" for their captors, and that they have "no desire for retribution." Finally, it ends with "A fourth captive, American Tom Fox, was found shot dead in Baghdad in March."

Now, the BBC is a state-owned corporation which is the largest broadcasting corporation in the world, and generally thought to be somewhat left-leaning. The BBC website also has links to articles from other news agencies on the same story. Let's compare to the one by Sky News (sister channel of Fox News in the US) which is owned by Rupert Murdoch and considered to be more right-leaning.

The first thing I would like to draw your attention to in this article is the difference in graphics chosen: note that the BBC uses a current picture of the three men while the Sky News article uses a current picture of only Kember (the British captive) as well as a photo from the footage from the hostage video distributed by the kidnappers. The article also does include the quotes about unconditionally forgiving and no desire for retribution, however a couple other things are worded differently. For example, despite the fact that the trial has not occurred yet (let alone anyone having been found guilty), the article explicitly states that "The militants who held peace campaigners for 118 days murdered a fourth hostage, American Tom Fox." The article also includes a paragraph that begins with "Asked if he was naive, [Kember] said: ..." and concludes with the statement "He faced criticism for his apparently dismissive attitude towards the troops who had risked their own lives to save him."

Now, I am a biased commentator, and make no claims to hide this fact. I strongly agree with the position of the captives, and I much prefer the BBC's style of reporting to Sky News. My argument -- which you are free to agree or disagree with -- is that by framing the event in the way that they have, Sky News is appealing to xenophobia within the UK, while at the same time arranging quotes in such a way that the position of the captives looks foolish. To be fair, this is never stated outright, and it could very well just be me projecting my own preconceptions onto the story. Let's take that closing line as an example though: "He faced criticism for his apparently dismissive attitude towards the troops who had risked their own lives to save him."

While there is nothing wrong with including criticism in a journalistic article, by ending with it, the critics are given the 'last word,' quite literally. Also, while there is nothing factually wrong with the statement about the troops risking their own lives, it plays into that "patriotic, you-must-support-the-troops" mentality. It suggests that he OUGHT to be thankful they risked their lives to save him. But then, why do you think he was dismissive (not even dismissive, apparently dismissive)? Perhaps because he was a PEACEMAKER whose goal in Iraq was to LESSEN violence. He was prepared to become a martyr for his cause. It's not surprising then, that he wasn't thrilled to be saved by people using guns.

Like I've said, these are just my opinions and you are free to disagree with them. In fact, I would love to hear comments from people who DO disagree.

Finally, the story in the Daily Mail (arguably the most right-wing paper/tabloid in the UK) doesn't even MENTION that the captives forgive their kidnappers. In fact, the story is titled "Kember in first reunion with fellow hostages" Not once does the article mention forgiveness, only that "they are understood to be very concerned the accused may face the death penalty for the kidnapping." In some ways this version of the story sits better with me than the Sky News one, because it doesn't come off as demonizing the subjects. On the other hand, it's even more frustrating because it ignores their message completely! They choose to simply not report forgiveness. Such dissent towards the modern implementation of the Military-Industrial Complex is effectively censored by this publication. Thankfully we live in a free society where we have access to other various versions of the same news.