After the Bomb
Summary: A dump truck pulled into Baghdad carrying a ton of explosives. The blast generated by the explosives killed 130 and injured more than 300. Other small explosions were also reported outside the city. The explosion came just hours after Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, a revered Shiite cleric, had made a plea for peace in the country.
The article, though written by a U.S. paper, the L.A. TImes, evoked a very negative American image in its lead.
" A dump truck hauling a ton of explosives hidden beneath boxes of food exploded in the center of a crowded Baghdad market Saturday, killing at least 130 people and injuring more than 300 in one of the deadliest blasts since the U.S. invasion of Iraq."
This comparison of such a horrible act to an act committed by the U.S. creates almost a disgust in ourselves as Americans and a feeling remorse in knowing that without that last part of the lead we would have went on with our day happily condmening whoever bombed Baghdad.
Whether this anti-American sentiment was intentional or not, it makes it all the more easy laugh at the idea of President Bush stepping into to denounce the attack when we have done the same thing.
Tina Susman, the author of the piece, goes on to write about other recent attacks giving an idea of how even though this explosion was bad, it isn't a secluded event.
In comparison, the article "Deadliest Blast Kills 135 in Iraq" by Ros Colvin from the Washington Times, uses a similar reference to the Iraq war, but with a more neautral tone in regards to America:
" A suicide bomber killed 135 persons yesterday in the deadliest single explosion in Iraq since the 2003 war began, driving a truck laden with a ton of explosives into a market in a mainly Shi'ite area of Baghdad."
In contrast to the L.A. Times article, the Washington Times article focuses only on this particular event. It makes some references as to what's being done to prevent more attacks, such a Bush stating that we, the U.S., are going to deploy 21,500 reinforcements to help on the opffense in Baghdad. This addition of information into the story creates a feeling of American heroism.
This contrast between an anti-American article and a more patriotic one, is an interest comparison to see. Especially when both papers are within U.S. borders, just opposite coasts. Personally, I like the L.A. Times article more, not because of the Anti-American sentiment, but because I enjoyed the author putting this incident in context with other attacks. I also like to see reporters taking a stand and being allowed to report articles that many people, particularly the government, don't agree with. No matter what side I side with.