Senior Iraqi al

This news story gives the press statement issued by the Iraqi Prime Minister, Nouri Maliki, and U.S. officials. The statement said that two officials of al-Qaeda in Iraq, Abu Ayyub al-Masri and Abu Omar al-Baghdad, were killed when Iraqi forces with U.S. support attacked their hideout (â€Å"Al-Qaeda in Iraq says leaders dead†; â€Å"Iraq al-Qaeda leaders killed in rocket attack†).Advertising We will write a custom critical writing sample on Senior Iraqi al-Qaeda leaders ‘killed’, news analysis specifically for you for only $16.05 $11/page Learn More The subject matter in this story is that both the U.S. and Iraq saw the killings as a major breakthrough in the War on Terror. This is because the demise of the terrorists was a significant blow to the operations of al-Qaeda in Iraq and in the world. In reporting this story, the writers of the news articles use selective data in reporting this useful information. The writers pick o nly information that supports the argument in the story and leaves everything else out. Since al-Qaeda is a global terrorist organization, the deaths of these two men could not have such a huge impact on the operations of the group as postulated by the writers. The story is believable since it is based on evidence; even al-Qaeda itself acknowledged the death of the two men. In reporting this story, the writes do not ignore counter-arguments. For example, the BBC news reports, â€Å"al-Qaeda had tried to camouflage Baghdadi by presenting several people with his name† (â€Å"Senior Iraqi al-Qaeda leaders ‘killed,† para. 18). Therefore, they give evidence to support the identity of the terrorists. Of all the information that has been presented in this story, the writers mainly emphasize on the reduction in al-Qaeda’s influence following the demise of its top leaders. The implication of this story is that we are able to see the growth of democratic principles in Iraq. Following this attack by the Iraqi government, several Iraqis criticized how the attack was handled. Some years back in Iraq, no one could be heard criticizing the Iraqi government. In presenting the story, the writers present some statements or overtones of values and emotions. For example, an al-Qaeda official was quoted saying, â€Å"you can kill our top guy but we’re still around and we’re in control of events† (Rising, para. 26). In this instance, the writer tries to bring the feeling that War on Terror is still something that needs a collaborative effort in order to be won. Regarding word choice, the writers chose the most appropriate language that is able to persuade the readers to come to terms with the issue at hand. Since in times of war, clarity is usually the first casualty, the writers portrayed vigilance in protecting news statement from collateral damage.Advertising Looking for critical writing on international relations? Let's see i f we can help you! Get your first paper with 15% OFF Learn More When reporting controversial statements, they preferred quoting the source directly. For example, â€Å"Can al-Qaeda pull off†¦how do Iraqis respond?†(Rising, para. 27). The story is written objectively by paying attention to fairness, factuality, and nonpartisanship. After the two terrorists were killed, the writers quoted response statements from both the Iraqi government officials and the al-Qaeda officials. This story was written when the Iraqi government, with the support of the U.S., was involved in efforts of reducing the threat that was posed by al-Qaeda in Iraq. Since the announcement was made by the Iraqi Prime Minister, al-Maliki, it indicated the effort its government was making in fighting the insurgents. The writers have given this story against the background of the hotly contested election results in Iraq. After this incident, he gained reputation as the one who can restore stability to the country once again. Works Cited â€Å"Al-Qaeda in Iraq says leaders dead.† News: Middle East. Aljazeera. 25 April 2010. Web. Galey, Patrick. â€Å"Thousands march in Beirut to promote secularism in politics.† Be seen,  be on the star scene. The Daily Star. 30 April 2010. Web. â€Å"Iraq al-Qaeda leaders killed in rocket attack.† New statesman. New Statesman. 20 April 2010. Web. This critical writing on Senior Iraqi al-Qaeda leaders ‘killed’, news analysis was written and submitted by user Cali Howell to help you with your own studies. You are free to use it for research and reference purposes in order to write your own paper; however, you must cite it accordingly. You can donate your paper here.

Todd Economics and Wall Street Journal Essay

Todd Economics and Wall Street Journal Essay Todd: Economics and Wall Street Journal Essay Economist’s Jargon: Unite and Divide By Con Scientious The economics profession’s jargon serves a variety of purposes. For example, their common terminology serves to make for more precise communication. It allows ideas to be communicated clearly and exactly. This exactness and clarity of terminology serves society by allowing economists to discuss economics with each other and with society with clarity so that other economists have a better understanding of what an economist is saying. A common terminology also serves to divide insiders from outsiders. For outsiders, for example economic students, who do not have a clue what these terms mean, economists’ terminology is exclusionary. It makes economists the gatekeepers of economic ideas. Economists’ terminology serves as a barrier to entry, restricting the supply of economists, and increasing the value of the services provided by existing economists. Which of these two reasons is the strongest? To answer that question let us consider two examples given by Amanda Bennett, the author of The Wall Street Journal article, â€Å"Economists + Meeting = A Zillion Causes and Effects† [The Wall Street Journal, January 10, 1995]. The two examples are the concepts of externality and utility, Why do economists use these terms? Based on her article, and on my classroom experience, I would judge that, of the two reasons, the self-serving reason is the stronger. Essentially, economists create their terminology primarily to make life difficult for students. Consider the first example: externality. Why no simple call externalities â€Å"unintended side effects†? It would be much easier for students to comprehend. Or alternatively, consider the second, utilities. How much clarity can the concept, utility, provide when the text tells us that, essentially, it means happiness? If it means happiness, why not use the term, happiness? The very fact that Ms. Bennett can provide a simple translation of economists’ jargon suggests that the jargon was unneeded for precise communication. And even, if there is some value added in terms of clarity of the jargon, do its costs in additional memorization for students, outweighs the gain. For me, the answer is clearly, no. Actually, to answer anything other than economists are self-serving would show that I have not done my homework. Economists’ basic premise is that people are self-serving. Why should economists be any different. With a difficult to learn economic terminology, economists can create a monopoly position for themselves; they can restrict supply and increase price for their services. To quote the textbook, â€Å"people do what they do because it’s in their self interest.† Thus, the preponderance of the evidence suggests that economists have developed their economic jargon with their self-interest, not society’s interest, in mind. Essay 2 I think the self serving reason why professions develop a separate terminology that only members can follow is more important because people are greedy and always want what is good for them, not what is good for society because of the problems of the barriers to entry and the free rider and thus, the self serving reason is more important. On the other hand, it is good for society if professions develop a separate terminology that only members can follow because then everyone can understand them, and they can understand each other. A common terminology permits effective interpersonal communication, thereby resulting in clear, complete, open dialogue. So in a way, the society-serving causes of professionals’ terminology outweigh the self-serving causes because if we didn’t have it, then we wouldn’t be able to understand the weighty and eloquent locutions spoken by the eminent economists of yesteryear and today. For these reasons, I think that sometimes the society-serving reason is the most important. This the intellectual importance of the self-serving reason which is also the most important sometimes. The whole theory