English paper

Running head: PARIS TERRORIST ATTACK 1

Two Perspectives on Paris Terrorist Attack

Abdulrahman Taieb

George Mason University

Two Perspectives on Paris Terrorist Attack

It is not a secret that we live in a world becoming more unsafe with every passing day. Among the many threats facing the world today, terrorism ranks highly. Terrorists struck France, and when they did, major media outlets and newspapers were there to cover the story. The story was the same, but it was featured differently in different newspapers. This difference in perspectives can clearly be seen by examining two newspaper articles from The Washington Post and Forbes. In the articles titled “This is Why the Paris Attacks Have Gotten More News Coverage Than Other Terrorist Attacks,” published in The Washington Post, Brian Phillips (2015) explores how terrorists arranged an attack on France and why the unfortunate incident generated more media coverage that other related incidents. On the other hand, Laurie Laird (2015), in the article “The Paris Attacks and the Economic Impact of Terrorism,” published in Forbes, digs into the same issue, while focusing more on its economic effects on the country. However, despite generally addressing the same topic, the two authors differ significantly in their approach and usage of styles. Although both articles discuss the Paris terrorist attack, they are written differently based on each publication’s intended audience.

Being a newspaper that circulates mainly in the District of Columbia, Maryland and Virginia, The Washington Post is read by a varying set of readers, who are diverse in age, outlook perspectives, and even political views. Undoubtedly, the newspaper is largely liberal; hence, its views will tend to range from the political center towards the left. The newspaper is read by the general public, who may not be in need of having detailed information about specific and technical issues. This can be deduced from the way Phillips (2015) introduces his article. He notes, “It seemed like the world stopped. News outlets devoted nonstop coverage to the terrorist attack in Paris. Many people changed their Facebook or Twitter profile pictures to show solidarity with France” (para. 1). There is no doubt that this introduction is general in its nature, thus targeting general audience.

Phillip’s (2015) main purpose in this article is to inform the general public about the Paris attack. He rarely goes into the specifics and details of the matter. Rather, he presents information and offers his opinion as to why the Paris terrorist attacks received more coverage than other similar terrorist’s attacks. In his effort to inform, he begins by asking vital questions: “Why this attack? Why didn’t the suicide bombs the day before in Lebanon, or the slaughter of more than 100 college students in Kenya earlier this year, draw such an outcry?” (para. 2). This question is quickly answered when Phillips explains that, “First, ‘news’ is generally considered to be something especially unusual,” and “second, news outlets are influenced by their consumers” (para. 5, 6). Through invoking questions and comparing the situation to others that have happened before, the author succeeds in drawing attention to his arguments – and therefore conveying the message in the process.

Phillips (2015) never forgets his audience as he writes. He employs astonishingly simple vocabulary in his writing. He uses the style of writing that is informative and close to the basic reading level of his readers. The author is fully aware of the diverse nature of his readers and does a good job in communicating with them simply. When the author asserts that “the journalism truism is that ‘dog bites man’ is not a story, but ‘man bites dog’is” (para 5), he deliberately makes use of common and familiar phrase with the intention of making this article simple so as to reach a broad range of readers.

As it is common in any informative piece, Phillips (2015) maintains the required distance while sharing his views. He writes from the point of an observer, taking great care not to be a participant in the events he describes. From his words, one gathers the view that the author is definitely very much concerned and worried that terrorists can strike and claim so many lives in the process. He even notes that in theory, all terrorist attacks should probably receive similar coverage; after all, all lives are important. However, the author maintains an impartial tone, sticking to his argument:

The Paris attack continues to draw interest because of the relative rarity of terrorism in France, the fact that the country receives visitors from around the globe, the shocking nature of the attack, and the potential implications for the Islamic State’s future plans. (para. 33)

It is important to note that while indeed the author does not come out as being too sentimental about the topic, his rather observatory tone is important in maintaining objectivity.

Unlike Phillips’ article in The Washington Post, Laird (2015) writes for a different type of audience. In her Forbes article titled “The Paris Attacks and the Economic Impact of Terrorism”, it is clear that Laird is writing for an audience that is fully informed on economic and business matters. It is important to note that Forbes is a purely business magazine whose articles are retailored for the taste of business savvy clients. As a matter of fact, the article is chiefly concerned about the economic effects of terrorism, hence uses the Paris attack as a case study. The type of audience is revealed straight in the introduction of Laird’s article when the author indulges her readers with brief business statistics that:

France’s CAC-40 index opened on a weak note, but was never down much more than 2%, ending just 0.1% lower for the day. London’s FTSE-100 index slipped by a larger, but still-measured, 1%, while Germany’s DAX index actually inched 0.1% higher. (para. 1)

There is absolutely no doubt that general readers are kept off – this information is strictly aimed at readers with financial knowledge at their fingertips.

Unlike Phillips who wrote to inform, Laird (2015)goes a step further in her writing, by taking sides in the discussed argument. The overall point is to prove that indeed terrorist attacks affect economies adversely. Laird not only informs her readers of this point, she persuades them into believing it as well. In her efforts to convince, the author is relentless. She declares, “While a downturn in travel stocks is a common, and typically transitory, reaction to threats and acts of terrorism, a more lasting effect could come from the economic impact of fearful consumers and tighter borders“(para. 3). Later in her arguments, she takes this point home, by noting that Europe has already started showing these signs as some countries were already considering closing their borders. Indeed the Paris attack would send shockwaves to European economies.

Throughout her article, Laird (2015) remains professional and official, employing the type of language that is formal, making use of suitable vocabulary. The author is fully aware of her readers and serves them with the appropriate vocabulary. For instance, in saying “consider the fragility of both European economies and the institutions underpinning the European Union,” (para. 5), the author employs a type of vocabulary that is selective and meant to communicate with her intended audience. It is obvious that not everyone has the ability to understand the ‘fragility of European economies’ as well as the institutions that serve to hold their union together.

In her article, Laird (2015) presents herself as a master of the subject she addresses. She argues authoritatively and seems to be in full command of all she says. She is sure that terrorism has a negative impact on economies. She does not guess the truthfulness of her thesis; she simply knows and has proven it. She ends by saying, “the human cost of the Paris tragedies is incalculable; a measurable economic toll is bound to follow” (para. 9). The author’s tone is that of concern because she is fully aware that when all is said and done, economies will suffer because of terrorist attacks – similar to the one that happened in Paris.

Terrorist attacks are indeed a blow at humanity. They lead to loss of lives and destruction of property. They maim economies, leading to the impoverishment of the masses. The Paris terrorist attacks shook France and left a terrible memory that will stay in the minds of people for a very long time. As seen in Brian Phillips’ (2015) article in The Washington Post and Laurie Laird’s (2015) article in Forbes, the Paris attacks shocked not only France, but the world at large. However, while addressing the same topic, the two authors explore issues differently, with Philips writing to the general audience and Laird remaining specific and technical in her approach. The two articles are written differently, based on each publication’s intended audience, making it apparent that audience is the most important feature for all authors to consider when determining the appropriate style for their writing.

References

Laird, L. (2015, November 16). The Paris attacks and the economic impact of terrorism. Forbes.Retrieved from: http://www.forbes.com/

Phillips, B. J. (2015, November 16). This is why the Paris attacks have gotten more news coverage than other terrorist attacks. The Washington Post. Retrieved from: https://www.washingtonpost.com/