By: Jack Floreancig
Who, What, Why
The cold war was a long stand off between the United States and the Soviet Union. Rather than fighting both countries began to create and stock pile copious amounts of nuclear weapons. Even though the tension was between two nations, the main principle of the cold war was democracy versus communism. The "war" ended when the Soviet Union collapsed. However, there is still tension between the United States and Russia today.
One perspective that stands out among most people is that the Soviet Union was the only country putting the world in danger. This is shown when the author states "Heads of states say Stalin wants peace while his troops are moving up and his bombers are warming their engines."(Cecil Brown, 3, 1948). In the article the author also talks about how that if we did not build atomic bombs hundreds of thousands of people would be maimed or killed in their homes. In my opinion this shows a lot of bias toward the United States.
Contrary to the first perspective this one is almost a polar opposite. In the article they talk about how Stalin had no intention of ever bombing the United States. In addition, they stick to point that the war didn't happen to prove their first claim. In consideration of both of these claims I think they are valid, but are pretty weak. I believe they need more sufficient evidence before making a claim like Stalin was a good man.
Media Bias Explained
In both articles there was a lot of bias present. In the first article they use an obscene amount of source selection to prevent the reader from seeing the other side of the argument. Consequently, the other article also displays a large amount of source selection. However, the second story also has omission. They use omission to turn the article into a one sided argument, never bringing up the other side. In conclusion, both articles use bias to shape the readers opinion to their liking.
In both articles there is a large amount of historic gaps. They both talk about uncertainty of the future. Today we know a nuclear war would not happen, but when these articles were published people did not know if their life would end the next day. In the first article they only conveyed the Soviet Union as the aggressor which would not sit well with the public today. In that time period, however the United States had more patriotism in my opinion and would back their country no matter what. The second article is not on the United State's side and back then was most likely very controversial, but today would be praised by millions for standing up to the government.
In the first article they took the United State's side which would have appealed to the United States citizens a lot more. It would appeal to the United State's citizens more because of their love for their country. If the first article were released in the Soviet Union I think a far different outcome would occur. They would hate the article as it goes against their belief in their country. In conclusion ones reaction to something is greatly influenced by their culture.