Media Reaction Paper•Cowell, Alan. "Subway and Bus Blasts in London Killat Least 37." New York Times on the Web July 8, 2005 •Benn, Aluf & Yossi Melman & Roni Singer. "PM: Don't Equate U.K. Attacks with Terror Here." Haaretz on the Web July 8, 2005 •Settle, Michael. "Al Qaeda's London Carnage." The Herald on the Web July 8, 2005 The media reaction paper assignment has given me significant insight into the media world. It is well-known that the media is clearly not an unbiased body, but the assignment highlighted many different aspects of this fact. More specifically, by examining stor ...view middle of the document...
While Haaretz, which caters mostly to Israeli immigrants, relates the incident to Israeli issues and the headline plainly shows the papers bias that the attacks are not comparable with terror in Israel.The Herald, which caters to the people who have been directly affected by the bombings, is the most emotive of the articles. It uses adjectives (such as "four huge bombs"), hardly ever used in informative newspaper reports, which illustrate their bias against Al Qaeda. The New York Times and Haaretz reports do not appear to be that different from The Herald's report. They report the same facts, but they clearly cater to different cultures. Both the New York Times and Haaretz relate the news back to their own cultures. The New York Times reported "Immediately after the attacks, the United States raised its terror alert level from elevated to high for mass transit systems." Haaretz reports on the reactions of the Israeli Prime Minister and President to the bombings: "Sharon telephoned British Ambassador to Israel" and " President Moshe Katsav sent a telegram to Queen Elizabeth II."Each paper clearly caters to very different cultures and relates its reports to these people. Even though these papers reported the same facts, their different approaches to the incidents show their biases and goals to reach very different cultures.
