Earlier this month, the Islamic State of Syria (ISIS) fired a missile at a US-Iraqi military base located in Northern Iraq. As a result, there was speculation that the missile contained sulfur-mustard agent, a chemical that causes blisters in human skin. Samples of the suspected material were subsequently collected and subjected to laboratory tests. Following the release of the test result, a number of media houses presenting conflicting positions on the results. This essay, therefore, aims at comparing and contrasting the different approaches used by the authors in delivering the message. Further, it seeks to dissect the different reasoning applied by two particular authors. This is in a bid to provide a comprehensive personal conclusion on the matter.
Despite their focus on a similar topic, the articles differ with regard to the contents of the missile. According to a Fox News article, the rocket contained the deadly chemical agent (Associated Press, 2016). Conversely, an article highlighting the same terror attack on the CNN website stated that the final laboratory test revealed no traces of sulfur-mustard agent. However, despite this, the approach use by the two authors shared some similarities but also differed in some instances. For instance , Browne (2016) quoted key personalities, in this case, Col. John Dorrian, an anti-ISIS coalition spokesperson who sided with CNN’s position. He also quotes Gen. Joseph Dunford, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who supported his claim. Browne (2016) further refers to information provided by military officials, U.S defense officials, and the U.S Navy captain. Similarly, the Associated Press (2016) quotes Dunford in its submission. However, in this case, it argues that Dunford confirmed the presence of sulfur-mustard agent.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Dissection of the two articles reveals a major conflict in reporting a similar incidence. Secondly, it points at the exaggeration of a half-truth without seeking a second opinion. This is particularly with respect to the Fox news article, whose entire position is based on Gen. Joseph Dunford’s point of view. However, it is clear that Dunford’s view might be distorted by his anti-ISIS stance . On the other hand, Browne (2016) makes a comprehensive argument in which he seeks the positions of various authoritative figures to support his stand that sulfur-mustard was absent in the sampled material. Nevertheless, there is the consensus of ISIS’s threat to the U.S troops in Iraq. However, I believe Browne (2016) makes a more compelling argument, and his position is believable. This is as opposed to Associated Press (2016) whose position is not fully supported .
References
Associated Press. (2016, September 22). General: Shell that hit Iraqi base used by US troops contained sulfur-mustard agent. Foxnews.com. Retrieved from http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016 /09/22/general-shell-that-hit-iraqi-base-used-by-us-troops-contained-sulfur-mustard-agent.html
Browne, R. (2016, September 27). US: ISIS did not use mustard agent in base attack. Cnn.com. Retrieved from http://edition.cnn.com/2016/09/27/politics/lab-test-isis-chemical-weapon/index.html
1
