The point of view from these pieces is from a North American stand point, no Muslim people’s opinions are expressed. The said “good guys” in these articles are the American citizens that were affected by the attacks against their government, and the “bad guys” are by far the Islam/Muslim people that are apparently “raging” against the United States embassy. The CTVnews. ca article serves as more of an “outsiders” point of view, like the mediator of the situation. The Canadian article doesn’t contain opinions, but more facts, and does not create the idea that there are “good guys” and “bad guys” in this situation.
The overall voice/tone of the CTVnews. ca article serves as a third party opinion to the mess that is this “Innocence of Muslims” video in the United States and the Middle East and surrounding countries, it does not contain a negative voice, or an opinionated voice, it simply weighs in on both sides of the story without drawing negativity to one side or another. The United States is of course going to be on their own side, and only voice things that put them in the favor of the public and media, while publicly insulting the Islam people, making them seem like a violent, outraged people.
Being that foxnews. com is an American source, these voices are strongly present. Constraints With the CTVnews. ca article, the writer had to be sure that no sides were picked. Merely weighing in on the subject matter at hand, they could not be as opinionated as the American sourced article, as it would make our country and government seem like an opinionated group of people. We are entitled to our own opinion, but we want to avoid picking sides as to not upset anyone from either side. This put a constraint on what exactly the writer could say on the topic itself, other than the straight facts.
The foxnews. com article however had to do the complete opposite. With the alleged attacks on the U. S embassy by the Islam people, if any American sourced articles were to sound “pro” Muslim, it could and would cause uproar by American citizens, accusing the publisher to be “anti” American. The constraints on the foxnews. com article followed these guidelines. The writer was very opinionated, and made sure to place all comments made by American political figures in a positive light. These constraints somewhat revolved around the political party of the United States, and Google’s opinions on the matter.
As far as economic restraints go, no matter which way the story is sold, controversy will be made, and the story will sell, so there was not much of a constraint in that area. Impact The coverage from these two articles has mixed attitudes towards religion. They avoid the topic of religion, while making sure that it is seen as a serious subject. The fact that there is no “religious” section on any of these news sites even more expresses the awkwardness publishers feel when talking about the subject of religion and religious controversies and scandals.
The story itself suggests that competing religions bring nothing but problems, and while most religions are about keeping the peace and worshiping God’s will, the people of these articles are not acting peaceful, and are creating a false illusion of what religion really is, which is highlighted in news media articles like these two. Religion is not supposed to be about competing to be superior and engaging in violence, yet a reader would assume so after reading pieces like these.