Islam online obviously held an opposite opinion to that of Haaretz, as being an Islamic media agency. On its article reporting the same event I found stronger and more negatively sensed words such as Sabri being “abducted” instead of detained by police, to cause a more violent impression on readers towards Israeli police and assert sympathy towards Sabri. For this same purpose this article has mainly focused on the way Israeli police “forcefully entered” Sabri’s house and abducted him without letting him even to change from his pajamas. Other words such as “dragged” and “barbarically” together with the statement by the end of the article declaring that Sabri was ailing and had undergone “open heart surgery” also attempt to make readers sympathize with weak and helpless Sabri and influence readers with hatred towards Israeli police’s “insensibility”. However, the actual cause of the event was very lightly mentioned, and the words “suicide bombers” referring to Sabri’s declaration in “ – “ causing an impression on readers that they are exaggerated or distorted.
The BBC article being from British news agency isn’t either strongly for, nor against any of the sides. It has basically reported about the actual event and had reference to either sides’ faults by mentioning clearly about Sabri’s condone towards suicide bombings and the way Israeli police detained and questioned him without bringing charges. The article, in return has also justified either sides by reporting that “the police had acted on recommendation by the attorney general.” And Sabri’s son’s declarations on his father being held over a friday sermon rather than “Save J.” Article.
Reuters, has reported this in a more neutral way as it is an international media agency and had to bear in mind opinions of different nations, or none. It reported the event by quoting very certain facts and exact words people said from either side without using any obvious and suggestive words to point out anyone’s faults. This article contained justifications of both sides too, always with closely related facts. In general, the article was briefer than in some other publications, but no unnecessary information has been added for any purpose, nor was anything important hidden.
In conclusion, these four different agencies by having different perspectives and preferences use very different ways on handling the same piece of information and especially two of them. Haaretz and Islam online attempt to assert their almost opposite opinions upon their readers by reporting only the pieces of information which are beneficial for their own nations. In other words, they tell the public what they want them to believe. This way turning their opinions to the angle the media wants the people to be.
Personally I have liked the BBC article better because it reported quite equally towards either sides but did hint obvious insinuations for and against both sides, while Haaretz and Islam online had both hidden part of the truth and exaggerated other parts. Reuter is not bad, but the report is too plain, emotionless. But it was definitely the least brain-washing article amongst all.
