Weekly news

Did Isis down Russian airline 

A Russian passenger plane bound for St Petersburg from the Egyptian beach resort of Sharm el-Sheikh crashed soon after take-off yesterday, killing all 224 people on board, 25 of them children including an infant aged just 10 months.

The dawn disaster over the war-torn Sinai peninsula provoked fears of a terrorist attack against unsuspecting holiday-makers. In a statement Isis, also known as Islamic State, claimed responsibility, saying it had targeted an aircraft “with at least 220 Russian crusaders aboard”.

The Kremlin immediately rejected the Isis statement as “unreliable” and said it was launching an investigation into reports of mechanical failure after take off.

The tragedy comes just weeks after Russia launched air-strikes in Syria to prop up the regime of President Bashar al-Assad that have targeted Isis strongholds. Security experts said it was unlikely Isis possessed missiles capable of hitting an aircraft at 30,000ft

Published by Nicola Smith and Mark Hookham



This article outlines the events of the Russian plane crash, It covers the amount of deaths and the people it affected. It also gave a quote from Isis to convince the reader that the terrorist group were the perpetrators. It provided other opinion that contradicted Isis' involvement with the plane crash, and the improbability of it.
The reporter in the article doesn't appear to be attempting to shock the reader as he isn't using a language techniques that implies, however by mentioning the "infant aged just 10 months" it makes the reader sympathise. This article appears to give no opinion or adjective used by the publisher (unless its a quote), meaning it just informs the reader of information.
My opinion is that the publishers should have added more of their opinion to the article in order to show the reader what they think. However it does enable the reader to think without being influence by the reporters bias opinion.