Pro-Muslim Brotherhood Article Critique
With all of the political unrest that is currently going on in Egypt, many different news mediums are putting out their stories and their takes on the situation. Something that people need to realize is that no matter what, everything has some bias to it. It is something that is unavoidable and something that is often times not even tried to be avoided in the media. This is true with the different stories that are being put out about the current violence and political turmoil that is occurring in Egypt. One such story entitled “Egyptian Protester Shot Dead In Cairo Clashes”, shown in the Huffington Post, is a clear example of how media bias is impacting the way in which one perceives a certain topic.
This article covers some of the violence that has occurred as a part of the political clashes that have occurred recently in Egypt. This article covers some of the violent offenses that have occurred in the country since the departure of Islamist President Mohamed Morsi. It also talks about the current pro-Morsi camps that are set up and the conflict between them and the government’s military forces, the total death tolls totaling over 300, and about several of the demonstrations that have been put on by the Muslim Brotherhood. The article then goes on to talk about the Constitutional Legitimacy of the overthrow of the government by the military and over what could possibly happen from here.
This article has an obvious bias in that it tends to favor the Muslim Brotherhood over the military backed government. There are several ways in which this is shown. The three main ways are through the diction that is used within the article, the biases that are found when examining the other works of the authors, and the overall bias of the Huffington Post. These three elements combine prove beyond a doubt that this article presents a bias towards the Muslim Brotherhood and against the current government.
The first thing that shows the bias of this article is the wording that is used within it. Words with negative connotations such as violence, critics, killings, and forces are used in conjunction with the guards, military, and government in an attempt to make them appear as the bad guys in this battle. Other phrases such as “Things remained quiet at the two pro-Morsi protest camps despite the government's frequent demands that protesters end a sit-in that has lasted more than six weeks” help to separate the Muslim Brotherhood from the government and make it appear as if one has the same perspective as the pro-Morsi protestors while the government is seen as an outside entity. The final way in which this article shows its bias is by presenting quotes from only religious scholars and Brotherhood members/supporters. This has the obvious quality of leaving out the opinions and perspectives of the people who are on the side of the government. So, between all of these things that are clearly put into the article, the bias towards the Muslim Brotherhood can clearly be seen.
The second thing that shows bias is the natural bias that the authors of this article have and thus incorporate into their work. When checking other stories that were written by these authors one finds several things in common amongst them all. The first thing that can be found is that both of the authors have been currently writing primarily on the events that have been unfolding in Egypt. The other thing that the articles, such as “Conciliatory tones in Egypt as envoys seek to avert bloodbath” and “Violence deepens Egypt turmoil, deposed leader probed for murder,” have in common is the fact that they all portray what is going on as negative and relate that negativity towards the government. So, with the authors obviously carrying a bias the bias against the government of Egypt is shown throughout their works.
The last thing that shows bias the news medium through which the article appears, the Huffington Post. The Huffington Post is known to have a natural political leaning towards the liberal side or the Democrat Party. Beyond this they also tend to have a very political outlook that is shown throughout their articles, and those political views tend to be very opinionated by those who write the articles. This is said by many including several articles written on the matter, such as “Arianna Huffington Asks, ‘Is This Left?’” and “Is the Huffington Post Biased?” which to be fair have their own clear biases, however the general form that is shown with the Huffington Post is one of a political nature. With this in mind they show very clearly their support for the political workings of the Muslim Brotherhood in this article.
Now that all of the political bias has been uncovered, I shall now just speak briefly on another bias that is prevalent both in this article and in most news sources in the U.S. The majority of the articles that are put out in today’s society tend to try and focus as much on the religious side of things as the political. This has led to several misconceptions about not only the specific instances which the articles are describing but also of the religions overall. The term “Muslim Brotherhood” is being widely used in today’s media, yet none of them take the time to actually describe what the Muslim Brotherhood is. The Muslim Brotherhood is an Islamic Political Party within Egypt which is devoted towards making the Qur’an and other Islamic symbols universal amongst the Muslims of Egypt. Beyond this the Brotherhood actually renounced political violence in the late 1940’s. So to classify everyone who is taking part in the rallies, protests, and other things as such as members of the Muslim Brotherhood is an overgeneralization and in the end incorrect. The same thing is happening with other religions as well where the religion itself is being taken and put on trial for people that may not even be associated with its teachings and its workings. The Muslim Brotherhood is a political party that is promoting Islam, however that does not make it the face of Islam nor does it mean that the standards set by them are ones that every Muslim follows. The religion as a whole is being punished for the acts of a few because of improper media bias. The term “Muslim Brotherhood” has now become synonymous with “Muslim Rage” or “Shariah- Islamic Law” which themselves are incorrect assumptions and notions about Islam.
So with all of that being said, the overall biases that result in the media today have a great impact on the way that people who read it view the topics being discussed. This is very clear when examining this article which clearly shows a particular bias towards the side of the Muslim Brotherhood.
This article covers some of the violence that has occurred as a part of the political clashes that have occurred recently in Egypt. This article covers some of the violent offenses that have occurred in the country since the departure of Islamist President Mohamed Morsi. It also talks about the current pro-Morsi camps that are set up and the conflict between them and the government’s military forces, the total death tolls totaling over 300, and about several of the demonstrations that have been put on by the Muslim Brotherhood. The article then goes on to talk about the Constitutional Legitimacy of the overthrow of the government by the military and over what could possibly happen from here.
This article has an obvious bias in that it tends to favor the Muslim Brotherhood over the military backed government. There are several ways in which this is shown. The three main ways are through the diction that is used within the article, the biases that are found when examining the other works of the authors, and the overall bias of the Huffington Post. These three elements combine prove beyond a doubt that this article presents a bias towards the Muslim Brotherhood and against the current government.
The first thing that shows the bias of this article is the wording that is used within it. Words with negative connotations such as violence, critics, killings, and forces are used in conjunction with the guards, military, and government in an attempt to make them appear as the bad guys in this battle. Other phrases such as “Things remained quiet at the two pro-Morsi protest camps despite the government's frequent demands that protesters end a sit-in that has lasted more than six weeks” help to separate the Muslim Brotherhood from the government and make it appear as if one has the same perspective as the pro-Morsi protestors while the government is seen as an outside entity. The final way in which this article shows its bias is by presenting quotes from only religious scholars and Brotherhood members/supporters. This has the obvious quality of leaving out the opinions and perspectives of the people who are on the side of the government. So, between all of these things that are clearly put into the article, the bias towards the Muslim Brotherhood can clearly be seen.
The second thing that shows bias is the natural bias that the authors of this article have and thus incorporate into their work. When checking other stories that were written by these authors one finds several things in common amongst them all. The first thing that can be found is that both of the authors have been currently writing primarily on the events that have been unfolding in Egypt. The other thing that the articles, such as “Conciliatory tones in Egypt as envoys seek to avert bloodbath” and “Violence deepens Egypt turmoil, deposed leader probed for murder,” have in common is the fact that they all portray what is going on as negative and relate that negativity towards the government. So, with the authors obviously carrying a bias the bias against the government of Egypt is shown throughout their works.
The last thing that shows bias the news medium through which the article appears, the Huffington Post. The Huffington Post is known to have a natural political leaning towards the liberal side or the Democrat Party. Beyond this they also tend to have a very political outlook that is shown throughout their articles, and those political views tend to be very opinionated by those who write the articles. This is said by many including several articles written on the matter, such as “Arianna Huffington Asks, ‘Is This Left?’” and “Is the Huffington Post Biased?” which to be fair have their own clear biases, however the general form that is shown with the Huffington Post is one of a political nature. With this in mind they show very clearly their support for the political workings of the Muslim Brotherhood in this article.
Now that all of the political bias has been uncovered, I shall now just speak briefly on another bias that is prevalent both in this article and in most news sources in the U.S. The majority of the articles that are put out in today’s society tend to try and focus as much on the religious side of things as the political. This has led to several misconceptions about not only the specific instances which the articles are describing but also of the religions overall. The term “Muslim Brotherhood” is being widely used in today’s media, yet none of them take the time to actually describe what the Muslim Brotherhood is. The Muslim Brotherhood is an Islamic Political Party within Egypt which is devoted towards making the Qur’an and other Islamic symbols universal amongst the Muslims of Egypt. Beyond this the Brotherhood actually renounced political violence in the late 1940’s. So to classify everyone who is taking part in the rallies, protests, and other things as such as members of the Muslim Brotherhood is an overgeneralization and in the end incorrect. The same thing is happening with other religions as well where the religion itself is being taken and put on trial for people that may not even be associated with its teachings and its workings. The Muslim Brotherhood is a political party that is promoting Islam, however that does not make it the face of Islam nor does it mean that the standards set by them are ones that every Muslim follows. The religion as a whole is being punished for the acts of a few because of improper media bias. The term “Muslim Brotherhood” has now become synonymous with “Muslim Rage” or “Shariah- Islamic Law” which themselves are incorrect assumptions and notions about Islam.
So with all of that being said, the overall biases that result in the media today have a great impact on the way that people who read it view the topics being discussed. This is very clear when examining this article which clearly shows a particular bias towards the side of the Muslim Brotherhood.
To read the full article go to this website: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/13/egyptian-protester-shot-dead_n_3751072.html
Pro-Government Article Critique
On October 9th this article was released by Stephanie McCrummen from the Washington post. The article talks about how the new military backed government of Egypt is trying to redefine Egyptian Islam to a more peaceful, moderate Islam. They are doing this because the Muslim Brotherhood has been promoting extremism while they were in control of the government, causing people to be more violent. They show this in the article by talking about how the government sent an Islamic preacher to a mosque that was used to hearing fiery sermons. The people in this particular mosque had friends and family members who died from security forces during protests about the coup. The article says the preacher was only there for about five minutes before the people in the mosque resorted to violence and attempted to harm the preacher.
So right away in the article it makes it seem that these people are extremists and that the government is right to try and promote a more peaceful Islam. This might not be the case however for a few reasons. Reason number one is that these people were mourning the loss of their friends and family. Emotions were very high and the government, whose security forces killed their loved ones, sends a preacher to try and convince them that their form of Islam is wrong and dangerous. These people may have just seen this as an insult or an attempt to control them, so they acted out against the preacher that was sent by the government that they associate with the killers of their loved ones. Reason number two is that many people who are religious believe in what they are doing and have a strong faith in their religion. Most people wouldn’t want to hear that their religion is wrong, or their religion is bad. Many people would take great offence to this and react in various ways. Some people may ignore the preacher, some may argue with the preacher, so it isn’t unreasonable to believe that people might take action against the preacher. Some critics say that the only reason the Egyptian government is doing this is to crack down Muslim Brotherhood supporters and to weaken their influence in the region. One critic, Emad Shahin, a professor of public policy at the American University in Cairo says, “It’s providing a religious justification to tolerate the killing of possibly thousands of people, and it is sending alarming signals into many segments of society. This is exactly what you call fascism.”
The article does go on to quote people who do not support what the military backed government is doing, but overall the article tends to show the new Egyptian government in a positive light. Some of the wording in the article seems to be bias and favors the Egyptian government in some ways. You notice the bias right away in the article when it starts talking about how a group of Muslims were angry at a government preacher and attacked him. If you look at the sentence, “It took about five minutes for the shoes to start flying.” It makes it seem like it’s no surprise that the people retaliated so violently, like it is a normal thing and these people act like this because they are extremists.
The writer of the article may also have some biases that also cause the article to favor the military backed government of Egypt. One reason may be because Maggie Michael is an American citizen. And ever since 9/11 many Americans have seen Muslims and Islam in a negative light, making associations between Muslims and terrorists. Since The Muslim Brotherhood has had ties with terrorists and the past, it is possible that she associates the Muslim Brotherhood with terrorism and sees them in a negative way. That can be one possible bias that the author has that makes this article make the military backed government of Egypt seem like the “good guys”.
She has done other articles before and they again tend to favor the military backed Egyptian government and tends to show the Muslim Brotherhood in a negative light. She uses phrases such as, “the Muslim Brotherhood’s return to the shadows of Egyptian society”, to make the Muslim Brotherhood seem evil and dark. She also uses phrases such as, “the popularly supported military coup”, to make the New Egyptian government seem good and helpful to the people. So you see these biases she has for one side in multiple articles that she has done that generally favor one side. This can explain why this article favors the Egyptian government over the Muslim Brotherhood.
So right away in the article it makes it seem that these people are extremists and that the government is right to try and promote a more peaceful Islam. This might not be the case however for a few reasons. Reason number one is that these people were mourning the loss of their friends and family. Emotions were very high and the government, whose security forces killed their loved ones, sends a preacher to try and convince them that their form of Islam is wrong and dangerous. These people may have just seen this as an insult or an attempt to control them, so they acted out against the preacher that was sent by the government that they associate with the killers of their loved ones. Reason number two is that many people who are religious believe in what they are doing and have a strong faith in their religion. Most people wouldn’t want to hear that their religion is wrong, or their religion is bad. Many people would take great offence to this and react in various ways. Some people may ignore the preacher, some may argue with the preacher, so it isn’t unreasonable to believe that people might take action against the preacher. Some critics say that the only reason the Egyptian government is doing this is to crack down Muslim Brotherhood supporters and to weaken their influence in the region. One critic, Emad Shahin, a professor of public policy at the American University in Cairo says, “It’s providing a religious justification to tolerate the killing of possibly thousands of people, and it is sending alarming signals into many segments of society. This is exactly what you call fascism.”
The article does go on to quote people who do not support what the military backed government is doing, but overall the article tends to show the new Egyptian government in a positive light. Some of the wording in the article seems to be bias and favors the Egyptian government in some ways. You notice the bias right away in the article when it starts talking about how a group of Muslims were angry at a government preacher and attacked him. If you look at the sentence, “It took about five minutes for the shoes to start flying.” It makes it seem like it’s no surprise that the people retaliated so violently, like it is a normal thing and these people act like this because they are extremists.
The writer of the article may also have some biases that also cause the article to favor the military backed government of Egypt. One reason may be because Maggie Michael is an American citizen. And ever since 9/11 many Americans have seen Muslims and Islam in a negative light, making associations between Muslims and terrorists. Since The Muslim Brotherhood has had ties with terrorists and the past, it is possible that she associates the Muslim Brotherhood with terrorism and sees them in a negative way. That can be one possible bias that the author has that makes this article make the military backed government of Egypt seem like the “good guys”.
She has done other articles before and they again tend to favor the military backed Egyptian government and tends to show the Muslim Brotherhood in a negative light. She uses phrases such as, “the Muslim Brotherhood’s return to the shadows of Egyptian society”, to make the Muslim Brotherhood seem evil and dark. She also uses phrases such as, “the popularly supported military coup”, to make the New Egyptian government seem good and helpful to the people. So you see these biases she has for one side in multiple articles that she has done that generally favor one side. This can explain why this article favors the Egyptian government over the Muslim Brotherhood.
To read the full article go to this website: http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-10-09/world/42862552_1_mohamed-morsi-security-forces-muslim-brotherhood