Bin Laden Article Comparison

The New York Times Article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/03/opinion/03tue1.html?scp=1&sq=editorial%20the%20long%20awaited%20news&st=cse

BBC Article:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-13268517

1. Who owns each source?
My two articles are from The New York Times and from BBC.

2. What does the source say explicitly about the story? Give a summary.
The New York Times article basically sums up the feelings and moments after it was announced that Osama Bin Laden was killed. It talks about President Obama's speech and what he talked about. Pointing out certain things like, "justice has been done" and that the U.S. will be “relentless in defense of our citizens and our friends and allies” — but “true to the values that make us who we are.” It also said that this is an example and a warning given to the Taliban that the U.S. won't give up.
The BBC article talks about Pakistan's main intelligence agency, the ISI, and how they are embarrased for their failures for not locating Bin Laden sooner. They said that the compound was raided several years ago but since that day it has not been on their radar. At the same time, they said that this one event shouldn't affect the way their agency is represented because over the past 10 years they have captured numerous Taliban and Al-Qaeda personel. They also added some details from the raid such as how many people were there and who was kept alive.

3. What voices are included? What voices are excluded?
In The New York Times article, the only voice being heard is the voice of an American person and quotes from U.S. President Barrack Obama. No other voices from people from Pakistan or around the world are being heard so in that sense, it is quite a one-sided and biased view on this topic.
In the BBC article, you hear from the U.S. and from Pakistan as well, so you get a much more diverse and much more informative look at this subject. You get quotes from both sides about Bin Laden, the planning and tracking and about the actual raid itself. You get quotes from the ISI and from people in the U.S. government.

4. Consider how the following are constructed: Bin Laden, Obama, the U.S., Pakistan, other countries?
In The New York Times article, there is no construction of any other country or people other than Obama, Bin Laden and the U.S.. This article shows that Obama is a very proud and strong leader of the U.S. and that it was a very tough decision for him to call on this raid. Also, it shows that the U.S. soldiers are very brave and fearless individuals who would do anything to protect their country. Osama Bin Laden is portrayed as a very evil man who was finally put to rest after sunday night. They contstruct it to seem that because of his death everyone can finally live in peace.
The BBC article talks about more about other countries like Pakistan and their intelligence agency, the ISI. The article constructs Pakistan and their ISI as sort of foolish at the beginning to have failed to see anything of the compound several years ago, but later in the article makes them seem strong again by restating the fact that over those years they caught numerous Taliban and Al-Qaeda personel. Also, it does something similar as the U.S. article in the sense that it makes Obama and the U.S. seem very brave and heroic but not to the same extent as the American one. It doesn't focus on Obama and the U.S. as much, it talks more in detail about the actual raid itself and how everything was figured out and planned.

5. Who benefits if the implied message is accepted? Who might be disadvantaged?
In the American article if the implied message is accepted the people and country who benefit from this will definitely be the U.S., Obama, the American government and the soldiers who raided the compound. The country that might be disadvantaged is Pakistan because they helped the Americans a lot in the locating and killing of Bin Laden.
In the BBC article if the message is accepted then everyone from the U.S. to Pakistan will be benefited. Although, the U.S. might benefit slightly more from it than Pakistan because they are talked about more and also because for half of the article Pakistan is portrayed as failures because of their failure to locate and capture Bin Laden in their raid on the compound several years ago. So in a sense, Pakistan might be a bit disadvantaged from this article depending on how you look at it.