THE 2017 LONDON BRIDGE ATTACK
On 3rd June 2017, three terrorists deliberately rammed a vehicle into pedestrians on London Bridge, before woundingindividuals in the neighboring restaurants and pubs. Despite being shot dead by the police who arrived shortly after the three men launched the attack, eight people lost their lives, while many more sustained injuries. The attack made headlines with various news sources, including the Washington Post, Fox News, the New York Times, and Reuters reportingthe incident. While the sources shared some similarities, including covering all the critical aspects of the event, differences exist in their inferences and conclusions. What is more, concerning the incident, the articles positioned women differently, some portraying them as potential solutions to terrorist problems. At the same time, some sources wholly missed out on the role of women.
While all the articles covered all the critical aspects of the incident, the reports differed in their conclusions and inferences. All the pieces included the vital elements of the event, including the date that it went down, the number of victims, the nature of the attack, and the number of perpetrators. However, the articles differed in their inferences, conclusions, and recommendations. For instance, the Washington Post inferred that the violence would have been worse if the attackers had a firearm (Editorial). On the other hand, the New York Times lamented about the increase in terrorist attacks, advising that Britain should cope better with the attacks, lest they interfere with the upcoming elections (Erlanger).Fox News made a rallying call to the prime minister for her action. In a separate article, Breitbart concluded that the identities of the suspects would be identified (London). Following this conclusion, the author opined that the upcoming elections would go on as planned. Separately, the Associated Press explained that the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levante (ISIL) was behind the attack (Kirka et al.). In this regard, the report condemned the incident and called the police to pursue the matter further. Reuters, after providing a factsheet of the attack, explored a separate incident that happened in Vauxhall, inferring that the two events were not related. The article recommended that the international community, including the United States, make more stringent regarding terrorism (Sanfle and Smout).In this regard, the articles shared some similarities, as well as exhibited some differences. Don't use plagiarised sources.Get your custom essay just from $11/page
Moreover, the credibility of the sources differed. While some of the articles included facts, some were made of opinion, sourcing evidence from non-reputable sources, as well as featuring authors with inadequate authority on the matter. An example of a credible source was the article by Reuters that reported from reliable sources, including verbatim from some of Britain’s top counterterrorism police (Sanfle and Smout). In a similar fashion, Kirka and others of the Associated Press provided direct quotations of the experiences of some of the victims of the attack. In fact, a significant part of the article depended on verbatim from various stakeholders. To aid their conclusions, they also provided the views of President Donald Trump on the issue. The Huffington Post offered credible information, even choosing to include external links of the sources that they used, including the Guardian and a government police website (Frej and Gordts).However, some of the sources lacked credibility, with most of the information coming from personal opinion. The news item by the Washington Post, despite the occasional verbatim, was mostly made up of personal views (Editorial). Similarly, the article on Breitbart was fairly short, with a critical lack of reputable sources (London). Despite featuring in a trustworthy news source, Erlanger misreported the day that the van rammed into pedestrians, reporting that it was Sunday, instead of Saturday. Nonetheless, the news source and the author were quick to recognize their mistake, and they later posted a disclaimer at the end of the article, acknowledging and apologizing for the earlier misreporting. Meanwhile, Kirka and Lawless of Fox News based some of their analysis on a tweet from social media application Twitter, a source that Liu observed to be lacking in credibility and validity (1027).As such, from the research, it was evident that there existed significant variances in credibility levels among the news sources.
Furthermore, the articles varied in the way they presented gender and women concerning the terrorist attack. Some of the sources reported women as potential solutions, while some of them failed to mention or acknowledge the role of women in the attack. Besides, some sources mentioned women as victims. For instance, Kirka and Lawless of Fox News emphasized the role of then Prime Minister Theresa May, stating the role she would play to avert such future incidences. In the same vein, Sandle and Smoutcalled onto Prime Minister May to tighten security. They also portrayed her as a leader, informing readers that May had given the go-ahead for the planned elections to take place. Sandle and Smout also highlighted May’s plans to review the country’s counterterrorism strategy. The New York Times explored the views of a woman who served as a witness to both the media and the authorities. While the Associated Press also explored May’s potentially decisive role concerning the incident, the authors also portrayed explained how one woman was part of the casualties, and how a chef of a nearby restaurant rescued her. The authors empathized that the restaurant chef had to take the woman “in his arms” to help her walk. The Huffington Post, however, failed to mention anything about women, instead focusing on the unwelcome role the three men had played during the attack (Frej and Grodts). As such, the articles varied in their presentation of women during the incident.
The various news sources reported the London Bridge attack of 2017 in different ways and methods. While all of them covered the vital news aspects of the attack, they varied in conclusions and recommendations. Furthermore, the news sources changed in levels of credibility and validity, basing their evidence from sources with varying degrees of reliability. What is more, the articles presented the role of women differently. During the analysis, Theresa May was discovered to be the woman that was most mentioned, and the sources repeatedly pointed to the potentially decisive role she could play. However, some other sources presented the women as victims, emphasizing how their male counterparts rescued them. Individuals who may read only one article stand to be misguided, as the news sources exhibit significant variance in credibility, information, and reliability. In this regard, it is crucial to assess evidence or information from a variety of sources to avoid misinformation and half-truths.
Works Cited
Editorial, Board. “The London Terror Attack would’ve been much worse if the Assailant had a Gun” the Washington Post. www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/global-opinions/the- london-terror-attack-wouldve-been-much-worse-if-the-assailant-had-a- gun/2020/02/03/adc38b9c-46ca-11ea-8124- 0ca81effcdfb_story.html%3foutputType=amp. Accessed 24 February 2020.
Erlanger, Steven. “Another Terrorist Attack Strikes The Heart Of London.” The New York Times, https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2017/06/03/world/europe/london- bridge-van.amp.html.Accessed 24 February 2020.
Frej, Willa, and ElimeGordts. “New Details Paint Unsettling Pictures of London Attackers.” HuffPost,https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_59337ebfe4b0c242ca24ba43.Accessed 24 February 2020.
Kirka, Danica, et al. “12 arrested in London’s night of terror; IS claims attack.” Associated Press, https://apnews.com/9486def2d8304595b17e40bafc508ad5/Police-arrest-12-after- night-of-terror-in-heart-of-London. Accessed 26 February 2020
Kirka, Danika, and Lawless, Jill. “Terror Attack On London Bridge Leaves 6 Dead; Police Shoot 3”. Fox News, https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.foxnews.com/world/terror- attack- on-London-Bridge-leaves-6-dead-police-shoot-3.amp. Accessed 24 February 2020
Liu, Ziming. “Perceptions of credibility of scholarly information on the web.”Information Processing & Management vol. 40, no.6, 2004, pp. 1027-1038.
London, Breitbart. “Net Widens in Search for Accomplices in London Bridge Attack.” Breitbart, https://hamodia.com/2017/06/05/net-widens-in-search-for-accomplices-in-london-bridge- attack/Accessed 26 February 2020
Sanfle, Paul, and Alistair Smout. “Factbox: London Bridge Attack – What Do We Know So Far?”. Reuters, https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN18V05Y. Accessed 24 February 2020