Al Shabaab attacks US training base in Somalia

“Al Shabaab Attacks US Training Base in Somalia.” The Star, The Star, 30 Sept. 2019, 

https://www.the-star.co.ke/news/africa/2019-09-30-al-shabaab-attacks-us-training-base-in-somalia/.

   This article does a very good job of eliminating most biases.  The article doesn't use loaded words. It uses phrases like "Jihadists have attacked a military base where US soldiers train commandos in Somalia, causing casualties, reports say." rather than "Islamic terrorists have viciously attacked a US base, murdering many."  The differences are self-evident.  The closest that the article comes to loaded words is the use of the word Mujahadeen in directly quoting the statement released by Al Shabaab. As well as avoiding loaded words, the article uses official statements and facts, reporting what is happening rather than what the reader should think about the event.  As far as my own bias, I am definitely biased against Al Shabaab, as a Christian, as someone who believes that killing is wrong,  as someone who is from the west, and as someone who believes that Islam is wrong and dangerous.  I don't think that the article itself article really ignited my bias, but my bias more affects my view of the situation.  In my head, I immediately categorised the Jihadists as "bad" and those in the Army Base as "bad" even though there is a definite argument against those in the base, saying that they're intruding, it isn't their business.  As someone who hates death, should I support the US military?  It challenged me.

   The article is aimed at Kenyans (even though it is world news, it is in a Kenyan newspaper) who are middle-aged and have interest in Eastern African affairs.  This would include businessmen (and women), lawyers, public advocates, and some of the general public.  I think the primary intent of the article is to inform, evident in its factual and unemotional reporting.  I also think that it achieves this well.