The Armenian Dispute
In 1915 the Ottoman Turks suffered a large loss at the hands of the Russians but blamed the Christian Armenians, deported them to the Syrian dessert and other spots. This resulted in the death of hundreds of thousands of Armenians from starvation or disease. Although the Turkish believe only around 300,000 Armenians were killed, the National Association of Genocide Scholars says that there more than one million Armenian deaths per BBC (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-56874811). President Biden recently spoke up about it, deeming it a genocide. Although the news seems straight forward, it can be twisted with political bias through either side of the political spectrum.
The main idea of the article is to show Biden as a man with great concern of human rights and to give background on the event. The article by the political left affiliated news source, The Guardian, starts with the first words of “Joe Biden has become the first US president declare formal recognition of the Armenian genocide.” This lead immediately praises Biden by the diction of. “First President” to make him look more appealing and trusting. The author continues by adding multiple quotes from Biden and the Turkish prime minister like, “It is clear that the said statement does not have a scholarly and legal basis, nor is it supported by any evidence. This statement … will open a deep wound that undermines our mutual trust and friendship. We call on the US president to correct this grave mistake.” This shows the oppositions response in full detail which is much different than the republican source. The sourcing continues by quotinig one of Biden’s administration officials who said, “This is something that’s been a deeply held conviction of President Biden for a very long time going back to when he was in the Senate and it was a position that he made very clear during the campaign,” which shows a wide variety of source instead of just the leaders. This articles way of stacking keeps mentioning the amount of Amrenians killed and the reasoning so that the message is heard and remembered. Another example of sourcing is that they used a quote from the director of the Turkish Research program at the Washington Institute, which is a well respected institution. This also supports the variety of sources. The director talks about how the pentagon has sort of lost respect for Turkey possibly because they purchased “the Russian S-400 air defense system.” This extra background is good for the article because it gives readers enough to create their own opinion.
On the other hand however, the article from right affiliated new source, National Review, did not aim to praise Biden but just to give more of a quick rundown of the topic. They immediately start with a quote from Biden, “Each year on this day, we remember the lives of all those who died in the Ottoman-era Armenian genocide and recommit ourselves to preventing such an atrocity from ever again occurring.” This is one of two Biden quotes, which makes up two out of the three total quotes in the article. This shows the readers that the problem does not matter as much or it shows that they are not as reliable. The author continues by saying, “The declaration will likely complicate American relations with Turkey, a NATO member and ally of the U.S., which opposes the designation of genocide,” which could create fear in readers because the diction implies unrest. He then quotes Turkish foreign minister Mevlut Cavusoglu’s Twitter response to Biden, “Words cannot change history or rewrite it, we will not be given lessons on our history from anyone. Political opportunism is the biggest betrayal of peace and justice. We completely reject this statement that is based on populism. #1915Events,” then follows it with, “Biden informed Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdogan on Friday that he would recognize the genocide, according to the Associated Press. The call between Biden and Erdogan marked the first conversation between the two leaders since Biden assumed office in January.” The diction of which makes Biden seem unprofessional since he has not met the prime minister as president.
Although people have the right to freedom of speech it can be misleading to those who follow without knowledge and their own opinion. Only getting news from one source can be dangerous because it could create an opinion without all the facts being shared impartially. If one had only read The Guardian they would view Biden as a peace maker but if they read the National Review they would percieve Biden more suspiciously.
