On January 3 2020, Iran general Qassem Suleimani was assassinated in a drone strike directed by US president Donald Trump.
Three articles based on this story will be analyzed on their bias and opinions as a news story.
The article from the Guardian overall is about average in their use of Bias.
The article displays the events in the order they occurred. Most of the article is just quotes, most of the quotes being from the side of Iran. With the article mostly focused from the Iran perspective it almost seems biased and as if part of the US’s side of the story is missing. This is all evidence of bias
While the article does display facts, it feels like some of the motives or reasoning for some events is lost for example when its written “Trump tweeted out an American flag with no comment” They give no reasoning for why Trump would do this leaving the reader to draw their own conclusions.
If there were a demographic for this article it would be of an older crowd because of the straight-forward presentation of the facts. The article also seems to side with Iran if anything by showing more quotes from people from Iran than USA.
CNN’s article has the least amount of bias between the three.
Firstly, CNN presents the facts and events in order. CNN provides eight full quotes. CNN gives information unbiasedly from both sides of USA and Iran.
Additionally, they provide the information of the protesters in Iran.
CNN doesn’t leave out any major information and explains the information professionally and straight-forward manner. If CNN had a demographic it would be of an adult, almost business/investor market.
The article says
“The Trump administration viewed Soleimani as a ruthless killer, and the President told reporters Friday that the general should have been taken out by previous presidents.”
The article doesn’t endorse nor disagree with these claims but only presents them. Similarly, later when the article shows the perspective of Iran they also don’t support or tear down their claims.
The Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has vowed “harsh revenge,” according to a statement published to his official website.
The New York Time’s article is unique among the three.
The article displays enough information to the point where the article feels bloated, partly because the article is mostly paragraphs that should be spread out more so it’s easier to read.
Information is provided, but not in the order they occurred but more or less in the order of the inverted pyramid, because of this some opinions are more buried than others. Instead of being the most important information, sometimes it’s on the what the article deems the most important opinions, due to how later some quotes will appear on the same topic.
Demographics would be towards a mature demographics who want to learn the most they can on the subject and event.
There isn’t much bias in the article aside from the occasional adjective such as ‘powerful’ or ‘drastic’
No information is omitted but that causes an overwhelming amount of information in the article, given how long the article is.
The New York Times