This news story gives the press statement issued by the Iraqi Prime Minister, Nouri Maliki, and U.S. officials. The statement said that two officials of al-Qaeda in Iraq, Abu Ayyub al-Masri and Abu Omar al-Baghdad, were killed when Iraqi forces with U.S. support attacked their hideout (“Al-Qaeda in Iraq says leaders dead”; “Iraq al-Qaeda leaders killed in rocket attack”).
The subject matter in this story is that both the U.S. and Iraq saw the killings as a major breakthrough in the War on Terror. This is because the demise of the terrorists was a significant blow to the operations of al-Qaeda in Iraq and in the world.
In reporting this story, the writers of the news articles use selective data in reporting this useful information. The writers pick only information that supports the argument in the story and leaves everything else out. Since al-Qaeda is a global terrorist organization, the deaths of these two men could not have such a huge impact on the operations of the group as postulated by the writers.
The story is believable since it is based on evidence; even al-Qaeda itself acknowledged the death of the two men. In reporting this story, the writes do not ignore counter-arguments. For example, the BBC news reports, “al-Qaeda had tried to camouflage Baghdadi by presenting several people with his name” (“Senior Iraqi al-Qaeda leaders ‘killed,” para. 18). Therefore, they give evidence to support the identity of the terrorists.
Of all the information that has been presented in this story, the writers mainly emphasize on the reduction in al-Qaeda’s influence following the demise of its top leaders. The implication of this story is that we are able to see the growth of democratic principles in Iraq. Following this attack by the Iraqi government, several Iraqis criticized how the attack was handled. Some years back in Iraq, no one could be heard criticizing the Iraqi government.
In presenting the story, the writers present some statements or overtones of values and emotions. For example, an al-Qaeda official was quoted saying, “you can kill our top guy but we’re still around and we’re in control of events” (Rising, para. 26). In this instance, the writer tries to bring the feeling that War on Terror is still something that needs a collaborative effort in order to be won.
Regarding word choice, the writers chose the most appropriate language that is able to persuade the readers to come to terms with the issue at hand. Since in times of war, clarity is usually the first casualty, the writers portrayed vigilance in protecting news statement from collateral damage.
When reporting controversial statements, they preferred quoting the source directly. For example, “Can al-Qaeda pull off…how do Iraqis respond?”(Rising, para. 27). The story is written objectively by paying attention to fairness, factuality, and nonpartisanship. After the two terrorists were killed, the writers quoted response statements from both the Iraqi government officials and the al-Qaeda officials.
This story was written when the Iraqi government, with the support of the U.S., was involved in efforts of reducing the threat that was posed by al-Qaeda in Iraq. Since the announcement was made by the Iraqi Prime Minister, al-Maliki, it indicated the effort its government was making in fighting the insurgents. The writers have given this story against the background of the hotly contested election results in Iraq. After this incident, he gained reputation as the one who can restore stability to the country once again.
Works Cited
“Al-Qaeda in Iraq says leaders dead.” News: Middle East. Aljazeera. 2010. Web.
Galey, Patrick. “Thousands march in Beirut to promote secularism in politics.” Be seen, be on the star scene. The Daily Star. 2010. Web.
“Iraq al-Qaeda leaders killed in rocket attack.” New statesman. New Statesman. 2010. Web.