According to all sources, a manhunt is in effect for these men, offering $20,000 for any information leading to the location of these men. There are posters at checkpoints with the pictures of these men, radio broadcasts going out, and searches by military helicopters are in effect. According to BBC local official Din Mohammed Darwish both men had survived the gunfight, and were being held in Logar province. While according to CNN, the New York Times, and LA Times, Darwish said that one of the men was in fact killed, and his body was found in the Patanak Mountains of Chark district.
All the news sources are writing about the facts, and nothing else. They all comment on how 56 American troops have died this past month in Afghanistan, which is close to the count last month (60). During the midst of this abduction, 5 soldiers have been killed in a Taliban bombing. This death toll has been the largest in the nine year war, giving readers a chance to look at the totality of the war and its destruction. CNN, and the LA Times are the only ones that wrote, “the thoughts and prayers of our entire Navy go out to the missing sailors serving in Afghanistan and their families," said Adm. Gary Roughead, chief of U.S. naval operations. They are trying to convey emotional response in their readers.
Because I found these news stories online, there were many links surrounding them. For instance, link on USA Today’s Article read, “Doubts about U.S. tactics shadow war in Afghanistan.” This made me explore the other sites for similar titles. On BBC I found an article stating how “Clinton defends US Strategy in Afghanistan.” These media sources are not dictating our thoughts, like the direct effects model proposes, however they are telling us what to think about, as the agenda-setting theory states. They want us to think about Obama’s war policies and how he plans to sends more troops into Afghanistan.
Another advantage to finding these articles online was that they were constantly being updated. Under the titles, it specifically says when it has been updated. CNN and the New York Times seemed to have the scoop, updating their articles more frequently, disclosing more information on the breaking news.
Works Cited
"Afghan Manhunt for Missing US Servicemen." BBC News. 25 July 2010. Web. 25 July 2010.
King, Laura. "5 US Troops Killed, 2 Missing in Afghanistan." Los Angeles Times. 24 July 2010. Web. 25 July 2010.
Mati, Matiullah. "Local Officials: 1 of 2 Abducted U.S. Service Members Killed." CNN.com - Breaking News, U.S., World, Weather, Entertainment & Video News. Web. 25 July 2010.
Oppel, Richard, and Alissa Rubin. "Search Widens for US Sailors in Afghanistan." New York Times. 25 July 2010. Web. 25 July 2010.
"Taliban: 1 U.S. Sailor Dead, Another Captured after Ambush." USA Today. Web.
I think it's interesting that you noted the difference between the headlines of the articles you read about this event. Soldiers having gone "missing" carries a much different connotation from soldiers being "captured" or "abducted" and I wonder why the BBC did not update their article. On the other hand, since this is technically American news, I suppose it makes sense that American news sources made more frequent updates about the event.
ReplyDeleteI think what you write about in the last two paragraphs is indicative of why the Internet has become such a prevalent news resource these days--to the point where we may eventually go paperless as Chapter 6 of our textbook implies. The idea of "breaking news" can be presented the most easily through the internet, a medium that carries an immediacy that other media tools, especially newspapers, lack. In addition, you mention that you were able to find other articles about the same event because so many links were surrounding the original articles you found--this may be demonstrative of how the internet can uniquely serve as a news aggregator, as discussed in class.