Iran announces nuke deal violations 40 years after U.S. Embassy takeover, hostage crisis
Hjelmgaard, Kim. “Iran Announces Nuke Deal Violations 40 Years after U.S. Embassy Takeover, Hostage Crisis.” USA Today, Gannett Satellite Information Network, 4 Nov. 2019, https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2019/11/04/iran-announces-nuclear-deal-violations-hostage-crisis-anniversary/4153869002/.
The bias present here is a very amero-centric bias. It is evident in the language, choice of details, even in the name of the newspaper. One thing that stands out to me is when the FAQ video embedded talks about the original coup, orchestrated by the CIA, it gives the fears of communism but somewhat fails to mention that the US and Britain, a co-conspirator, stood to lose an incredible amount, economically speaking. It mentions the 444-day hostage situation in 1979, claiming that this event "set the tone for decades of animosity and fraught relations with the United States." The article does not mention for another 5 paragraphs that this hostage situation arose because the US was harbouring the tyrant that they had put in place and supported to keep the oil flowing freely, who had committed horrific crimes against humanity and his people. The US continued to grant him asylum despite the Iranian new government demanding for him back to answer fro the human rights violations he committed through is secret police. The article neglects to mention this specific detail, saying only "The shah, dying from cancer, fled Iran to seek medical treatment in New York in January 1979, paving the way for the country’s Islamic Revolution." It implies that the hostage situation was triggered by general anger at the US, instead of the US harbouring essentially a war criminal.
The article does not, however, use emotional language to try to sway the reader, use false facts, or omit anything very important for the direct subject of the article (recent developments in the Iran nuclear tensions). Overall it does a good job of providing both sides of the argument, despite its understatement of some of the US's questionable historical actions. IT seems to be aimed at Americans, specifically middle-aged Americans, voters, people with a vested interest in the Iran conflict.
The bias present here is a very amero-centric bias. It is evident in the language, choice of details, even in the name of the newspaper. One thing that stands out to me is when the FAQ video embedded talks about the original coup, orchestrated by the CIA, it gives the fears of communism but somewhat fails to mention that the US and Britain, a co-conspirator, stood to lose an incredible amount, economically speaking. It mentions the 444-day hostage situation in 1979, claiming that this event "set the tone for decades of animosity and fraught relations with the United States." The article does not mention for another 5 paragraphs that this hostage situation arose because the US was harbouring the tyrant that they had put in place and supported to keep the oil flowing freely, who had committed horrific crimes against humanity and his people. The US continued to grant him asylum despite the Iranian new government demanding for him back to answer fro the human rights violations he committed through is secret police. The article neglects to mention this specific detail, saying only "The shah, dying from cancer, fled Iran to seek medical treatment in New York in January 1979, paving the way for the country’s Islamic Revolution." It implies that the hostage situation was triggered by general anger at the US, instead of the US harbouring essentially a war criminal.
The article does not, however, use emotional language to try to sway the reader, use false facts, or omit anything very important for the direct subject of the article (recent developments in the Iran nuclear tensions). Overall it does a good job of providing both sides of the argument, despite its understatement of some of the US's questionable historical actions. IT seems to be aimed at Americans, specifically middle-aged Americans, voters, people with a vested interest in the Iran conflict.
This was very good to read, I had know idea about the specific details of the 444-day hostage situation. I now have a altered perspective on the history behind the fluctuating tensions between Iraq and the United States. It was also surprising to read that Iran's increased enrichment of uranium technically does not violate the nuclear deal. This gives a different view on the reason the U.S. continues to put pressure on Iran due to their increased uranium enrichment. Overall it was a very good and thorough analysis of the article, and accurate pointed out the negative bias and positive information in the article. Well Done! :)
ReplyDelete