A Balanced Take

  In August, I wrote my second post on the media coverage of the airstrike conducted by the US targeting a suspect ISIS-K member responsible for planning the Kabul airport attack. At the time, the US government believed that it had successfully killed the target and was unaware of any civilian casualties. However, the Wall Street Journal article that I analyzed included original reporting that contradicted the government's comments. Now, the government has released the findings of its investigation into the strike, confirming that it did not in fact kill any ISIS-K members and that ten Afghan civilians were innocent victims of the attack. This week, I have analyzed the same three sources that I used in that second post to see how their reporting on the government's findings compares to their initial reporting on the airstrike. Tends to skew right: Fox News: “General says it is unlikely ISIS-K members killed in August Kabul drone strike: 'A tragic mistake'” The biggest ...

  As I'm sure you all are aware, 2021 marks two decades since the devastating terrorist attacks on the US that killed nearly 3,000 people. This year is especially ripe for reflection, seeing as the war in Afghanistan that started as a result of the attacks has finally come to an end. Here is how a selection of mainstream media outlets covered the anniversary.  Leans toward the right: Breitbart: Five Hard Lessons from America’s 20-Year Journey Since 9/11  This is an opinion piece by James P. Pinkerton. The headline is honest about the author’s stance on how the US has handled foreign policy since 9/11, and this piece takes a critical look at how America has dealt with the war on terror for the past 20 years. For an openly right-leaning article, I found the author’s approach quite refreshing. Bush’s failure to take the presidential daily briefings about a terrorist threat seriously are mentioned, including Bush’s famous quote, “All right. You’ve covered your ass now.” Inter...

  Hurricane Ida pummeled the eastern half of the United States last week, disrupting lives and making the effects of climate change a reality to millions of Americans. Here is a look at the coverage from various major media outlets. Leans toward the right: Wall Street Journal (Opinion): Why Hurricane Ida Wasn’t Katrina The headline of this article and the headline of the Vox article are essentially making the exact opposite claims about Hurricane Ida, which I find very interesting. This article was published the day after Vox characterized Ida as “devastating” to the Gulf Coast, while this piece calls the handling of the hurricane “an American success story.” This is definitely the starkest contrast I’ve seen between outlets that are reporting on the same story. It definitely makes me skeptical; how can two takes on the same event be so different? Surely one of the articles must be spinning the facts. Before I move forward with my analysis of this article, I want to note that it wa...