Vladmir Putin's Article Analysis

Rationale: The media has a rather tremendous power regarding setting political discourse. Favoritism in the media front has been increasingly growing in a pernicious weed kind of way. The article is related to media simply by being a written source. The writer of this article did so without reflecting on the meaning and support that the assumptions and premises had on the practice. The article relies on a narrow number of sources to come up with conclusions and lacks diversity in its premises. The article serves a rather diverse audience from the Middle East to Brussels and Washington, a fact that is not represented in its diversity. The article is reported from the point of view of a writer who had no firsthand experience in the happenings,
This is neither good nor bad, it simply is. Bias might be a small word but it identifies the collective influence that an entire message carries. Journalists speak from a political position but mostly not overtly so. Whether it is by omission, selection of sources and story, labeling and placement or spin, it is time that journalists stop applying a narrative structure to a rather ambiguous event(s) with the purpose of creating coherence and establish causal sense of
Anything that relates to the Russian president is dripping of hostility and contempt from the Americans and the European Union. The article does not offer the reader a slightly objective or even fair minded account regarding the remarks that Putin made. The article, in contrast, feeds us with a rather steady diet of increasingly prejudicial language regarding the comments the Russian president made at a conference noting the contributions that the United States has made to the chaos in counties like Libya, Ukraine, and Iraq. Putin is correct and this seems to be what the article is emphasizing the most, clearly ignoring rationalism and realism. The writer concludes with saying that the Russians have no part in the mess that is the Ukraine crisis but rather the Islamic extremists among us, in this case referring to the Americans and the Europeans, a completely one sided conclusions that is supported by biased premises. It has been established that Brussels and Washington influence on the Middle East has unlikely positive outcomes, for the article to paint Putin as the good guy and discredit any effort that the United States and the European union have made in the Ukraine crisis is a biased