The U.S. and the U.K.
This is an excerpt from the paper...
The oft-cited ôSpecial Relationshipö that exists between the United States and the United Kingdom infers an ideological common bond, a cultural cohesiveness, and a political partnership that is supposed to transcend petty misunderstandings and trans-Atlantic misperceptions. In reality, nothing could be farther from the truth. As allies, the US and the UK have made every effort in recent years to stand together on international issues. And yet, these efforts have been frustrated less by public servants than by the masses of private citizens that perceive international affairs very differently. Consequently, it should hardly be surprising that Americans and Britons tend to diverge ideologically, politically, even culturally, when processing international events and drawing conclusions about them. In recent months, many developments around the world have produced such an effect. For the purposes of this discussion, the Israeli fence and the recent decision by Ariel SharonÆs government to pursue a course of unilateral separation from Palestine will be explored, with special attention given to the ways different news sources convey the same ôfactsö. First, however, a more general discussion of the media will be prudent. As is often the case, media coverage is responsible for the varying perceptions that Americans and Britons develop and maintain over the years. Indeed, singular events in far-off regions of the world are seldom covered in the same way by separate new
. . .
prevails. Staff writer Megan K. Stack, writing on January 9, 2004, presents the story from the perspective of the Palestinian people as well as the Israeli government. Like Horowitz, StackÆs use of language implies urgency and exasperation. Unlike Horowitz, StackÆs language choice relies more heavily on the words spoken by the international figures featured in her article. In this, the picture of the situation as created by Stack appears more legitimate. Her choices are less about what words to choose than about whom to quote. The portrait of Israeli unilateral disengagement that emerges reflects these choices.
Stack relies heavily on statements made by Ahmed Korei, the Palestinian Authority prime minister. KoreiÆs response to the Israeli plan to pursue unilateral separation and draw stark boundaries is to hint at an opposite course: a one-state solution that incorporates the Jews and the Arabs into one nation (A3). As Stack reports, ôKoreiÆs proposal would threaten the essence of IsraelÆs Jewish identityö (A3), this being the case because a higher Arab birthrate could well make for an Arab majority in a single state, forcing a minority status on Israeli Jews. By all accounts, the situation is at a critical juncture.
. . .
Some common words found in the essay are:
Middle East, Americans Britons, Craig Horowitz, Ariel Sharon, United Kingdom, GU Palestinian, Americaö Goldfarb, Michael Goldfarb, Brummer GU, Genevieve Birk, middle east, israeli fence, media coverage, unilateral disengagement, los angeles, media bias, los angeles times, angeles times, american media, milne gu, disengagement plan, unilateral disengagement plan, february 1 2004, west bank gaza, 2004 retrieved world,
Approximate Word count = 4470
Approximate Pages = 18 (250 words per page)
More Essays on The U.S. and the U.K.
|
Customer Service
to Over
32,000 Professionally Written Papers!!!
