The two-year civil war in Syria is one of the most discussed military problems in the world because of its potential effect on the international politics and economy along with the impact on the global peace. That is why, the information about chemical weapons attacks in Syria on August 21 influenced the global media discussion of the problem significantly.
According to the data and facts, on August 21, severe chemical weapons attacks were realized near the territories of Damascus in Syria, and hundreds of persons were killed as a result of the attacks (Levs; Pleitgen and Cohen). The international community is inclined to discuss the administration of the state’s President Bashar al-Assad and the leaders of the opposing military forces as the authorities responsible for the attacks (Khan).
There are several problematic questions associated with the issue which are the lack of the factual evidences to support the discussion of the attacks, the impossibility to determine the authorities responsible for the attacks unambiguously, and the impossibility to conclude strictly about the effectiveness of the United States’ decision to use the military powers in order to overcome the dramatic situation in Syria.
As a result, the aspects of the incident are discussed in the news media differently, depending on the origin of the media and specific points emphasized in the articles. To examine the international issue of the chemical weapons attacks in Syria in detail, it is necessary to focus on the articles published on the problem, while paying attention to the differences in discussions and interpretations.
During the two-year civil war in Syria, the international community discussed the possibilities for intervention because of the necessity to stabilize the situation in the region. Nevertheless, the debates remained unresolved because of the negative threat of the military intervention’s potential effects (Pleitgen and Cohen). The dramatic situation with the use of chemical weapons for the political purposes changed the directions or lines of the associated discussions.
Today, the most expressive and influential debates can be observed with relation to the news media publications. It is important to pay attention to the fact that the opinions of the articles’ authors on the aspects of the international issues are different with references to the position of the country. There is a tendency that this position and the linked ideas are often shared by the author who supports the vision of this or that political force and country’s leaders.
From this point, Frederik Pleitgen and Tom Cohen, who work for CNN, in their article “’War-Weary’ Obama Says Syria Chemical Attack Requires Response” present the overview of the problem in Syria as an international issue only from one perspective, discussing the role and position of the USA in the conflict in detail.
Pleitgen and Cohen provide facts and details on the position of Barack Obama in relation to the chemical weapons attacks and state that Obama chose to realize the limited military response to the actions of the Syrian authorities because the situation could be discussed as the fact of crossing the ‘red line’ discussed earlier as the trigger to start active intervention activities (Pleitgen and Cohen).
It is possible to state that Pleitgen and Cohen use only one perspective to refer to the Syrian problem, accentuating the position of the US President and providing the necessary arguments to justify it. According to the authors, Obama “called the Syrian attack a ‘challenge to the world’ that threatens U.S. allies Israel, Turkey and Jordan while increasing the risk of such weapons falling into the hands of terrorists” (Pleitgen and Cohen).
From this perspective, the decision of the President to start intervention activities is justified with references to the necessity to act in this dramatic situation when the international community chooses not to take the active position in relation to the issue. Thus, the main idea of the article is in the fact that the USA should take concrete actions and to stop the activities of the Syrian authorities.
One more important question asked by Pleitgen and Cohen is why such countries as Russia, China, and Iran chose to support Syria in the situation when there is an obvious threat to the global peace.
This question is also discussed in detail in the article “Syria Allies: Why Russia, Iran and China are Standing by the Regime” written by Holly Yan for CNN. If Pleitgen and Cohen try to explain the position of the US President with references to the inappropriateness of the countries’ positions mentioned above, Yan focuses on the proper examination of all the possible reasons and causes for Russia, China, and Iran to act according to their decision.
The main questions asked by the author regarding these countries are “why it cares”, “what it’s saying”, and “why it matters” (Yan). In spite of the fact that the author of the article is inclined to share the decision of the US President to develop the intervention in relation to the problem in Syria, his discussion of Russia, China, and Iran’s visions of the issue is more complete and comprehensible than the discussion provided by Pleitgen and Cohen.
Such authors as Whitesides and Mohammed, Tisdall and Le Blond are also interested in providing different perspectives in their articles to see the picture of the international issue from several sides (Tisdall and Le Blond; Whitesides and Mohammed).
Thus, Yan states that Russia, China and Iran have prolonged economic connections with Syria, and the countries’ ideologies can also be correlated. For instance, Russia’s position is based on the fact that the country is the arms supplier of Syria, and the support of Syria depends more on the resistance to support the USA in the discussion of this international issue.
If Pleitgen and Cohen avoid explaining Russia’s vision of the problem, Yan’s claims are important to be considered because the reader can receive the answer to the question of Russia’s role in providing the USA with the possibilities to realize the intervention. Being the member of the U.N. Security Council, Russia can influence the Council’s decision on allowing the USA to realize the intervention activities.
Iran’s position is explained with references to ideology, and China operates the perspective of potential economic advantages. That is why, these countries rely on the political resolution of the problem. As a result, the discussion presented in the article by Pleitgen and Cohen can be considered as more biased in comparison with Yan’s argument in spite of the fact that the articles’ authors present their visions for the audience of CNN.
Thus, the ethnocentric factor plays different roles in relation to these two articles. Pleitgen and Cohen’s message is stricter, and the reader is expected to support the vision of the US President in relation to the problem. In its turn, Yan’s discussion can stimulate the further analysis of the topic with references to the facts provided in the article (Pleitgen and Cohen; Riechmann and DiLorenzo).
In their article, Pleitgen and Cohen compare the current situation in Syria and the US reaction to it with the previous international problematic situation associated with the USA and Iraq. However, the comparison of the cases is rather cursory. The detailed analysis of the Syrian problem in the context of the Iraq war is provided by Khan in the article “Obama Readies for Syrian Strikes in Shadow of Iraq War” prepared for Aljazeera America.
The main questions asked by the author in the article are the necessity to realize the promise given by Barack Obama in relation to the ‘red line’ issue and the appropriateness of the two conflicts’ comparisons as it is discussed for the Iraq war and for the situation in Syria. According to Khan, “Obama is not so much contemplating a full-scale war or attempting to install a democracy so much as sending a symbolic message about the use of chemical weapons” (Khan).
From this perspective, referring to the situation in Syria, the reader can perceive the facts provided in the article as presented more objectively. Thus, the reader can interpret the discussed evidences on situation referring to the data provided, but without the reflection of the author’s ideas.
However, the most objective vision of the problem is presented in the article “Syria Chemical Weapons Attack Killed 1,429, Says John Kerry” published on the BBC website. The author of the article concentrates more on the discussion of the international relations between the USA and Britain in the context of the Syrian crisis.
The problem is in the fact that Britain rejects to support the position of the USA in relation to the chemical weapons attacks because the British authorities are inclined to avoid the development of the international military conflict. The author of the article provides facts on the issue without any judgments, but the possibility of the intervention to resolve the problem is also discussed (“Syria Chemical Weapons Attack”).
Thus, the forces to be used in the activities against Syria are listed in the articles. Such forces as the four US destroyers and airbases are discussed as prioritized to overcome the situation threatening to the international peace.
Nevertheless, the role of the states supporting Syria in the conflict is not discussed in the article, thus, the article’s author has no intention to analyze the aspects which can influence the reader’s vision of the problem from this or that perspective. The similar viewpoint is shared by the authors of such articles as “Russia Suggests Syria Surrender Chemical Weapons to Avoid Attack” (Friedman).
On the one hand, all the mentioned articles can be discussed as belonging to the ‘historiography’ of tomorrow because of presenting the problematic issues in their perspectives with references to multiple controversial visions of the point. On the other hand, the ideas reflected in the articles can affect the readers’ views on the problem differently because of the shifted emphases.
Thus, Pleitgen and Cohen organize their article in a specific way to provide themselves with the possibilities to support the argument related to the appropriateness of the US President’s position regarding the issue in Syria. The article provides a lot of evidences to justify the position of Barack Obama and his decision about the start of the military actions against the Syrian government.
To add to the history of the question, it is necessary to refer to the articles by Yan, Khan, and Robertson as important to analyze the question from different viewpoints. The authors are inclined to support various positions with references to their ethnic background and nationally along with the fact of following concrete political views (Robertson).
As a result, the content of the articles can be discussed as biased to the definite degree because of the authors’ intentions to discuss the problematic question from the certain perspective.
The analysis of the news media articles on the controversial issue of the chemical weapons attacks in Syria on August 21 is the challenging task because of the fact that different authors are inclined to follow rather opposite ideas on the development of the situation because of various approaches to interpreting the data.
Having completed the comparison and analysis of the articles provided by the BBC, CNN, Aljazeera, and other resources, it is possible to state that the authors’ presentation of the material depends significantly on their own vision of the problem. Thus, the reader receives the access not only to the concrete facts on the international issue but also to the interpreted information which can be provided with references to the definite biases.
From this perspective, the production of news is based on the effective interpretation of facts rather than on their proper presentation in detail. The articles discussing the most controversial aspects of the problem with the help of expressive language can influence the reader more significantly because of being rather appealing for the audience.
Works Cited
Friedman, Dan. Russia Suggests Syria Surrender Chemical Weapons to Avoid Attack. 2013. Web.
Khan, Naureen. Obama Readies for Syrian Strikes in Shadow of Iraq War. 2013. Web.
Levs, Josh. U.S. on Syria Chemical Attack: What’s the Evidence? 2013. Web.
Pleitgen, Frederik, and Tom Cohen. ‘War-Weary’ Obama Says Syria Chemical Attack Requires Response. 2013. Web.
Riechmann, Deb, and Sarah DiLorenzo. John Kerry: Syria Videos Showing Chemical Weapons Attack Make Case For Military Strike. 2013. Web.
Robertson, Nic. Chemical Weapons: The Desperate Commander’s Escape from Stalemate. 2013. Web.
Syria Chemical Weapons Attack Killed 1,429, Says John Kerry. 2013. Web.
Tisdall, Simon, and Josie Le Blond. Assad did not Order Syria Chemical Weapons Attack, Says German Press. 2013. Web.
Whitesides, John and Arshad Mohammed. Syria’s Assad Denies Chemical Weapons Use; U.S. Presses Case for Strike. 2013. Web.
Yan, Holly. Syria Allies: Why Russia, Iran and China Are Standing by the Regime. Web.