One recent event that generated a range of interpretations
across the media landscape is Donald Trump’s decision to strike Syria with a
chemical bomb. “The media falls in love with this affair,” says media analyst
Jamal Dajani. Many would say he has made foreign policy more effective. This is
the way his decision was described in a BBC article, making him look like a
hero. This article states that President Trump has brought US foreign policy
back in line with conventional thinking. Comparing this to a Fox news article
brings out a completely different view, a view that portrays President Trump as
more of a bad guy, stating that the attack was emotional and illegal. This Fox
News article states that Syria is not a threat to the United States, nor is
likely to become one, so why make this decision? The targeted demographic of
the Fox News article would be those who voted against Donald Trump, and the
targeted demographic of the BBC article would be those are support Trump and
who are in favor of the decision he made. Andrew Napolitano states, in his Fox
News article, that Trump apparently did not have all the intelligence he needed
in front of him before he attacked Syria. He also goes on to included that,
legally, he cannot use military force to punish or to teach a lesson to another
sovereign state that poses no threat to the United States. Coming back to the
BBC article, the writer states that, because of this decision, President Trump
is beginning to know what he doesn’t know. He states that the use of this force
sends a message to America’s adversaries that Mr. Trump is not as war-averse as
his predecessor. Basically, this writer states that these “signals” and
“messages” Trump is sending out are positive. He’s sending a message to
everyone to let them know where he stands, which is exactly that the other
article talks about in the complete opposite way, stating that it is illegal
and inhumane to do something like that. Techniques that are being used by each
article differ. In the BBC article, there are numerous pictures of President
Trump shaking hands with other leader, smiling, portraying a positive outcome
from his decision. Also the title of the article, “What does all this bombing
tell us about Trump?” This title is safe and doesn’t really attack his
character. As apposed to the other article, which is titled, “Trump’s attack on
Syria was both emotional and illegal.” This title takes a stab right at his
character, making him seem like a villain. Also in this article, there are
photos and video of the awful outcomes this decision has caused.
