On US Airstrikes After the Kabul Terrorist Attack

Following Thursday's ISIS-K terrorist attack outside of the Kabul airport, the US launched an airstrike against a target that reportedly perpetrated the attack. Here is how a few mass media outlets covered the story, organized by the typical political orientation assigned to them by the Ad Fontes & AllSides Media Bias charts.

Tends to skew right:

Fox News: “Pentagon says two ‘high-profile’ ISIS-K terrorists killed by US airstrike; another wounded” 

This article includes a detailed headline that quickly communicates important points of the story. In comparison to the similar CNN headline discussed later, this headline does a better job of informing the reader. The inclusion of "high-profile" implies that the strike was significant, which is a framing choice that conveys the strength of the US response. Content-wise, the article cut straight to the point. It provides background about the Kabul terrorist attack in the first paragraph, then moves to statements from the Pentagon about the airstrike. It utilizes simple language that does not leave room for any uncertainty about Pentagon's claims, unlike the upcoming articles. It does, however, mention the limits to the Pentagon's statements, including that they "would not go into detail about the targets' connections" to the attack and "would not release the names of those taken out by the US strike." The authors make a point to note that President Biden has taken "significant political pressure" for the "chaotic evacuation" and also mentions that some Republican lawmakers have called for his resignation or impeachment. This is something that neither of the other articles do. The article closes with Biden's statements about standing up to the terrorists and not backing down, another show of American strength. Overall, this article relied on facts but did tailor its content to the expected Fox News audience by mentioning the Republican criticism of Biden's handling of the Afghanistan evacuation. 

Trends toward the center:

Wall Street Journal: “U.S. Used a Special Hellfire Missile in Afghanistan Airstrike on Islamic State”

This article is uniquely framed around the type of missile used by the US in the attack. The Wall Street Journal received exclusive reporting from multiple US officials that an R9X "inert warhead" was used in the attack. The specific type of missile has not been publicly confirmed by the government. However, the article includes the details of three other notable times that the missile was used, which suggests that the Journal's source is knowledgeable about the situation. The original reporting shows a lot of depth, as it includes a description from eyewitnesses of the strike scene about the extent of damage and casualties. The article is not afraid to highlight the covert nature of the Pentagon in terms of providing public details on the situation. It mentions that the Pentagon "declined to say whether there were multiple strikes" but left open "the possibility that multiple strikes occurred." It also notes that Pentagon officials would not provide details on the relation of the targets to the Kabul attack, then goes on to say that the Journal's sources suggest that the target was both connected to the attack and planning future attacks. Overall, this article takes a journalistic approach that focuses on informing the audience of crucial details. It notes when the information it has from its sources differ from what the US government has communicated to the public, but does not disclose any specifics about its sources and their credibility. 

Tends to skew left:

CNN: “US military conducts airstrike against ISIS-K planner”

My first impression of this article is that the headline is very basic. It is factual, but it lacks crucial details that the Fox News headline manages to incorporate, such as that the attack killed the targets. The body of the article relies heavily on the public statements made by US Central Command spokesman Captain Bill Urban, and the only original reporting is the portion mentioning that Biden approved the airstrike. President Biden's remarks on the Kabul attack, as well as his vow to retaliate, are included. The authors make a point to highlight the potential of future attacks by including statements from White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki, another unnamed senior White House official, and the US Embassy. The article also draws on statistics about the evacuation provided by the White House. I found it interesting that it noted how 4,200 people were evacuated from Kabul by the US in a 12 hour period on Friday, while 7,500 had been evacuated in that same period on Thursday. It's unclear whether this difference is due to the attack, a lower number of evacuees remaining, or something else. It finishes up with the State Department's statement that they are in contact with around 500 Americans citizens who still need to be evacuated, which shows that this is clearly an ongoing effort. Overall, I didn't notice any notable framing or bias, but I am disappointed by the lack of original reporting or fact-checking done by CNN. Unlike the Wall Street Journal article, this one relied entirely on the public statements made by US government officials.

My balanced take:

In the aftermath of Thursday’s ISIS-K attack that killed 13 US service members and over a hundred others outside the Kabul airport, President Joe Biden vowed that the United States would hunt down the perpetrators and make them pay. On Friday, the Pentagon confirmed that the US conducted an airstrike in Afghanistan’s Nangarhar Province against a target connected to the airport attack. According to spokesman Bill Urban, indications are that the target was killed and no civilian casualties occurred. The Wall Street Journal reports that eyewitnesses from the site say that three people were killed and four others wounded. It’s unclear whether these casualties were civilians, therefore contracting the Pentagon’s claims, or whether these were all targets. Multiple anonymous US officials told the Wall Street Journal that an R9X missile was used in the attack, which ejects its blades instead of exploding in order to reduce civilian casualties and damage. However, a video of the site shown to the Journal reportedly shows damage to a home and auto rickshaw. 

The attack and subsequent airstrike comes as US troops rush to evacuate both American civilians and themselves from Afghanistan ahead of Biden’s August 31st withdrawal deadline. The White House said that as of Friday, approximately 109,200 people had been evacuated by the US. The evacuation is continuing while the US Embassy warns of the possibility of further terrorist attacks.