 |
| This picture circulated shortly after Osama Bin Laden's death was officially reported. Soon after its release, government officials proved that it was not a real picture of Osama Bin Laden. The United States government has still not released pictures of Osama Bin Laden's body. |
Naturally, my first thought when researching this topic was to compare my country, South Korea, to its clear counterpart, North Korea. After looking at several North Korean news sites, I found one particularly fascinating. In an article by Asia Times, the author talks about how South Koreans supposedly want the North Korean President, Kim Jong-Il to suffer a similar fate to Osama Bin Laden. This was quite interesting to read since nowhere in my research had I found any such articles. According to Asia Times, a news outlet called Dailian stated, “Why can't we do to Kim Jong-Il, as [the US did] to Bin Laden? ... Just as the US killed Bin Laden for the September 11, 2001 terror attacks, we should retaliate with the death of Kim Jong-Il.” In contrast, the articles that I found reflecting South Korea’s opinions on Bin Laden’s death were much less extreme. Even in the most biased article, from Jogging Daily, the writer celebrated the United States, but in an understated way that was in no way wishing for the death of Kim Jong-Il. Perhaps it should have been more obvious, given the amount of censorship and government control that takes place in North Korea, that any information they are given would be anti-South Korea and western nations. Nonetheless, this is a perfect example of how varying governmental forms play a key role in what the media’s message is. The communist regime in North Korea plays a huge role in what the media is even allowed to say, which could account for the lack of fair coverage on Bin Laden’s death. In contrast, South Korea’s republic form of government gives the media far less limitations on what they can publish, accounting for the diverse array of opinions on Bin Laden’s death. Ultimately, however, South Korea presented information in a far more neutral way.
The next obvious source I felt needed checking was news sources from Afghanistan. Aside from the United States, Afghanistan is probably the country most impacted by Bin Laden’s death. On the Daily Outlook Afghanistan, I found it fairly surprising at first to find an article called “Osama’s Death-no game changer.” Could this mean they are telling the people of Afghanistan that they are still hoping to win this war? After further reading, however, I found a much better perspective than I thought. The author references Western media sources such as Reuters, and although they do incorporate opinion in the article, it is not in a way that screams, “This is what my government is allowing me to do.” I investigated that matter and found that the site prides itself on being the nation’s “Leading Independent Newspaper,” explaining why they represented both sides of the story. The lack of government control leaves the media with more freedom to include opinion that may or may not be condoned by Afghanistan’s government.
 |
| The President and other United States security officials watch an update on the operation that ended in Osama Bin Laden's death. The government has received a lot of criticism over the changes that have been made to the official story. People wonder why changes would have to be made when officials witnessed the event taking place. |
Next, I wondered what impact this event would have on the world’s smaller nations. An article in Ethiopia stated that Osama’s death is “good news to Ethiopians” because the Obama administration is in favor of democracy, something that Africa is desperately in need of. Ethiopia’s history of political unrest makes this particular article even more fascinating. The website, Addis Voice “aims to serve as a multimedia platform that will spread uncensored news, commentaries and analyses that are unlikely to see daylight in Ethiopia.”
The Japan Times Online published an article beginning with “Ding dong, the witch is dead. Osama Bin Laden…” This to me seemed extremely appropriate given Japan’s high rates of education as well as press freedom. Even more obvious was the fact that Japan is an ally of the United States, and so, seeing some publications supporting the recent event could be expected. Also expected, however, the article continues in a much less biased perspective covering the most important facts of the story without adding too much opinion.
In stark contrast, an Indonesian website felt quite differently about the events that had taken place. The article asked the question that has been creating controversy since the day President Obama officially announced Bin Laden’s death: If the U.S. really did kill him, why aren’t they showing a picture of his dead body? This sentiment has been seen throughout the world and has created a number of conspiracy theories. Unlike other websites which may have also presented some of their opinions, this website did not make up for the fact that they demonstrated some bias and finished the article shortly after. This article really shocked me given Indonesia’s fairly high approval rating of Obama. In many studies, the government believed that relations would improve with the country after Obama was elected. Clearly, however, a popular president can only fix so much.
When researching Western media’s coverage of Osama Bin Laden’s death, I first turned to Canada, given that I’m a dual citizen there as well as here in the United States. As I expected, the coverage came from reliable Western sources such as the Associated Press. One article from The Globe and Mail revealed that the operation had almost gone quite badly. Never in my reading of United States media had I seen any of this information. It struck me that perhaps since Canada had press freedom similar to ours, yet weren’t as involved or impacted by the event as us, their coverage could be extremely interesting to research. According to this article, one of the reasons the operation took place when it did was “because too many American officials had been briefed on the plan.” This is a mistake I doubt the United States would be quick to admit especially during a time of celebration. Nonetheless, it is fascinating that this information is readily available to us, and yet, our media has taken quite a different angle.
 |
| President Obama officially announces the death of Osama Bin Laden at the White House. His speech was postponed several times during the course of the evening in order to confirm that Bin Laden had, in fact, been killed, and that the United States had headed the operation that resulted in his death. Despite DNA confirmation, conspiracy theories continue to circulate. |
Likewise, the UK’s NewsNow, also takes a fairly critical approach. They link readers to an article explaining that the United States should “not to continue to engage the world primarily with military force, but must do so as a nation powered by the strength of its educational system, social policies, international development and diplomacy. They too have high levels of press freedom, and their ally status with the U.S. gives them somewhat unofficial permission to make suggestions.
Obviously, Obama’s death was the perfect opportunity for world media to respond in a variety of different ways. Each country’s individual situation highly impacted the way that the media did respond, and it was fascinating to research this further. For the time being, it will be an adventure continuing to monitor the world media circus.
-Lindsay MacLeod
