Iraq War Article
This brief article reports that four U.S. soldiers were killed by an improvised explosive device (IED) while on a patrol in Baghdad.
Meanwhile, another soldier was killed and three others wounded near Tikrit in an explosion that occurred near their vehicles.
The most obvious strategy that the author seems to be employing in this article is a stoic, emotionless tone with which he reports the deaths of these five soldiers. In fact, he begins the article by stating that four soldiers had "died" when their "vehicle struck an improvised explosive device." This extremely passive language seems to imply that no human act caused the the lives of these soldiers to end. Additionally, the author finishes the article without referring to these soldiers as individuals. In fact, he only states that the "names of the casualties" had not yet been released.
The passive, unspecific language of this article is revealing of a pro-war stance that does not place the blame for these deaths on any other group or even the war itself. The author almost speaks as if these soldiers died from natural causes.
These individuals did not simply "die." They were killed when their vehicle triggered a deliberately prepared bomb. The author seems to deemphasize the reality of this particular situation, relaying the information in vague, detached terms that reveal his bias.
Wednesday, April 9
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Although the summary of the article you read is quite brief, I am able to understand the basics of what took place. Your analysis is very good and descriptive. I like how you talked about the passive language that was used. After reading so many news articles, I find it unusual that the reporter's purpose was to provide the information without including any personal ideology.
I like how you looked closely at, not only what the author did say, but also what he didn't say. It does seem that his tone takes a casual or unattached manner for discussing war, but I wonder if this is not his way of trying to show no bias. If he had used the terms you describe, one could then argue that he was being blatantly antiwar. I believe that war is a very difficult to write about unbiased.
I think you nailed it. The way you describe the author's "passive" voice is excellent to be sure, but have you considered that he or she may have done that on purpose? I don't know if you meant to write in the same manner, but your analysis also seems passive but it, like the article communicates small facets of your opinion. Does that make sense? I'll try to explain more if it doesn't.
Post a Comment