Summary Of 'Paris, Beirut, And The Language Used To Describe Terrorism'

Media coverage varies even though it’s about very similar incidents which create many conflicts in society.
The general argument made by Nadine Ajaka in her work "Paris, Beirut, and the Language Used to Describe Terrorism", is that the media coverage plays and enormous role in creating empathy for those countries that have had terrorist attacks. More specifically, Ajaka argues that media covered both terror attacks that occurred in Paris and Beirut; but led to viewers reacting with different feelings for each attack. Ajaka states the headlines for the terrorist attacks in Beirut are "Dozens Killed in Bombing Targeting Hezbollah Stronghold in Lebanon" and "Suicide Bombing Kills at Least 37 in Hezbollah Stronghold of Southern Beirut" (Paragraph 4). On the other hand, the titles for articles written about the terrorist attacks in Paris are:

In this passage, Ajaka is suggesting that almost all titles about the terror attacks in Beirut mention the "ethnic-religious makeup of the area attacked" but in the titles for the Paris attack, it only mentioned what and how the civilians reacted and/or felt. Furthermore, Ajaka argues that articles about the Paris terror attacks created more empathy because of how journalists choose to write it. More specifically, Ajaka argues that New York Times’ authors express the "unforeseen horror to humanize the victims" (Paragraph 8). She writes "context about the broader conflict” in which the attack took place dominated many articles about the Beirut Bombings (Paragraph 8). In the article, Ajaka is suggesting that most authors wrote about broader conflict rather than describing the harm that was done to those civilians. In conclusion, Ajaka's