A New War?

It's the big question in everyone's mind: will America become entangled in another war? Over the last 48 hours, both the Wall Street Journal and New York Times (other news sources as well) have been running article after article--what is Britain doing? What is France doing? Should America go to war with Syria? Obviously this is news American citizens need to be aware of. Should we be sending our boys further into the depths of war? It's hard to leave out my own bias in this situation, so I'll let you know: I think this is crazy. A president who ran under the promise of peace is now willing to enter into another war--alone.

This is the difficulty of being a journalist--leaving out your opinion. While I do take issue with some journalists over what seems to be a personal bias (or is it just my own bias I am bringing to the table that is telling me they are bias? This is a circular headache), I admire most writers for attempting to present the facts while still telling a story.

The Wall Street Journal's "U.K. Parliament Rejects Syria Action" seems pretty clear. In a parliamentary vote, the people's representatives decided not to get involved. Though this vote was nonbinding, "in practice the rejection of military strikes means Mr. Cameron's hands are tied." This is a curious phrase; Mr. Cameron's hands are tied. This makes the reader assume (me included) that he could still order military action without the approval of Parliament, but makes it clear later that Cameron has no wish to go against the British people.

What WSJ's article is missing is made clear in the NYT article, " Britian Rules Out Military Strike on Syria." While WSJ notes that Parliament voted not to get involved, they did not state what the tally was, as NYT covers. The issue was lost by 13 votes. And while WSJ discusses Cameron's statement that 'it was clear' the Assad regime was being a chemical weapon attack, though there was no 'smoking piece of evidence,' NYT quotes the document Cameron was pulling 'proof' from. It is the quotes pulled from the assessment by the Joint Intelligence Committee that makes me think those writing the assessment seemed biased themselves because they flat out state "it is not possible for the opposition to have carried out a CW attack on this scale," noting that the regime currently in power has used them at least 14 times in the past. And while they vaguely list 'intelligence' suggesting that the regime is behind the attack, they do not go into detail. As Cameron said, there is no smoking piece of evidence.

The NYT article brings up the opposition Cameron will face against the Labor Party, while the WSJ mentions opposition from not only the Labor Party, but the Liberal Democrats and even those in his own party, the Conservatives. And though the NYT quotes a man opposed to the military involvement, they also include a Conservative party member's response.

Honestly, it's hard for me to gauge whether the NYT or the WSJ is biased for or against anything other than going to war. Neither author seems willing to give the idea any serious thought, which raises the question: are they only covering what they know, or covering what they think everyone is thinking?  Both articles let the reader know that Cameron is all for going to war, but refuses to go against the votes of British citizens. WSJ even goes so far as to quote Cameron stating that he refuses to let his actions be governed by Obama, but instead by the Parliamentary votes. The WSJ also widens its views, bringing up the question of if the US will go to war alone or with France, as the French government, though also seemingly eager for war, is going to hold an emergency meeting (even though the president doesn't need consent to go to war).

I think these articles bring up what is great about not having just ONE newspaper for American citizens to get their news from. Both of these articles gave me a little more information. While they were covering the same issue, one had more numbers, one had more quotes. They each gave a piece of the picture. Together, they made more sense. It seems logical for each paper to have a little different information. They all probably don't have the same sources.