Your Title Goes Here

The Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons hostility began after editorial cartoons depicting the Islamic visionary Muhammad were published in the Danish news typography Jyllands-Posten on September 30, 2005. Danish Muslim organizations staged protests in response. As the controversy has grown, some or all of the cartoons have been reprinted in newspapers in more than fifty opposite countries, leading to violent protests involving hundreds of deaths, particularly in Muslim countries.I regain this is a suitable story to explore and analyze media bias and discriminative overcompensateing, as this is a highly controversial issue between a Muslim population sensitive over what they perceive as a global assault by the westward world on their theology and faith, and both(prenominal) liberals and right wingers alike who feel that freedom of speech is unutterable and unassailable.As such, I have include news coverage from 3 distinct sources Al-Jazeera, commonly regarded as the media whiz of the Arab world BBC, one of the oldest and well-thought-of media institutions in the world and finally, a random daily newspaper from the linked States, to compare the news coverage regarding this controversial issue, and to identify any media bias, ostracise reporting or partisan reporting.Al- JazeeraThe link to the story can be found in the Works Cited section of this paper. We would expect from a antecedent basis that Al-Jazeera would typically play up the offensive temperament of the cartoons, cotton up the perceived insensitivities and double standards of the Western media vis--vis the cartoons and the Holocaust, as well as champion the rights of the Muslim world.Surprisingly, this is non the case. The news article quoted seemed to be factual sooner than opinionated in nature, quoting a variety of sources and viewpoints from both sides of the fence, from the Danish media and politicians to Hamas and other(a) Islamic militant groups. No underlying or latent propaga nda was spy indeed, negative quotes were enclosed in double quotes, and attributed to its source. The language used was non-inflammatory, cerebrate on facts and events, and there was no sozzled hint of an opinion piece.The closest the Al-Jazeera piece came to being biased was when it was reporting on the nature of the cartoons (drawings) at the nerve centre of the controversy. The descriptions used were accurate, non-misleading, and mildly strong. However, there was no mention of the Western world point of view, or of the fact that the combined cartoons at the heart of the controversy which were spread by Danish imams contained 3 additional (highly offensive) drawings not published by the Jyllands-Posten.I conclude that the Al-Jazeera piece, when factual in nature and non-inflammatory, seems more interested in presenting the reaction of the Muslim world as well as the threats made by them, when ignoring the Western point of view. there seemed to be an unusual emphasis on the n egative incidents such as attacks and boycotts that has occurred as a result of the backlash against the cartoons.BBCThe report by the BBC is by far the most accurate and objective. It presents inconsistencies on the actions and words on both parties (the Danish media and the Danish imams who incited the controversy), reporting in detail how an editor of the Jyllands-Posten rejected cartoons of Jesus Christ with the reason that they would offend. Impressively, the particular section also included (in brackets) a update in which a reader pointed out that the paper did publish a cartoon of the biblical Joseph in 2000, and thus queries wherefore the paper should be criticized over the rejection of the Jesus Christ cartoons, finally expiry with the editors (of the BBC report) explanation of why the inconsistency was still valid.A detailed account of how the initial cartoons failed to spark any major outrage, until a group of Danish imams made concentrated efforts to spark a controvers y by adding 3 cartoons which were highly offensive and insulting (more so that the current cartoons) and were not published by the Jyllands-Posten to a portfolio and touring various Middle easterly Arab leaders with them follows.The report finally ends with a reflection of the viewpoints and the reaction of both sides. I was very impressed with the objectivity of the reports, and the lengths to which the writer went to portray the inconsistencies of both parties. majuscule PostThe report by the Washington Post is reverberative of that by Al-Jazeera non-inflammatory, factual in nature, no underlying propaganda or strong language, and drawing from a wide variety of sources. However, whereas Al-Jazeeras report rivet solely on the reaction of the Muslim world, Washington Post report carried a fair balance of the reactions of both the Western world and the Muslim world. There was a balance in the strength of the opinions and announcements from both side, and so I find the Washington Post more balanced and objective, although the BBC outshines the Washington Post in this aspect. Works CitedReynolds, Paul. Cartoons Divisions and inconsistencies. BBC. Monday 13th February 2006 http//news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4708216.stm craze Grows Over Denmark Cartoons. Al-Jazeera.net. Tuesday 31st January 2006.Sullivan, Kevin. Muslims Fury Rages Unabated Over Cartoons. The Washington Post. Saturday eleventh February, 2006. http//www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/10/AR2006021001822.html