# data[].attributes.body
Ashiq, Peerzada. “Kashmir Calm, but Fear Is Palpable among the Locals.” The Hindu, 8 May 2025.

# data[].attributes.body
Ashtakala, Diya. “What Led to the Recent Crisis Between India and Pakistan?” CSIS, 20 May 2025.

# data[].attributes.body
Linton, Caroline. “India Preps for Possible Retaliation after Hitting Pakistan with Missile Strike as Kashmir Tensions Soar.” CBS News, 7 May 2025.

# data[].attributes.headline
Kashmir calm, but fear is palpable among the locals

# data[].attributes.subject
Kashmir calm, but fear is palpable among the locals

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Kashmir calm, but fear is palpable among the locals

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Kashmir Valley on edge after ‘Operation Sindoor’, schools closed, airport shut, residents fear escalation, stockpile essentials, exams postponed.

# data[].attributes.headline
What Led to the Recent Crisis Between India and Pakistan?

# data[].attributes.subject
What Led to the Recent Crisis Between India and Pakistan?

# data[].attributes.headline
India preps for possible retaliation after hitting Pakistan with missile strike as Kashmir tension soars

# data[].attributes.subject
India preps for possible retaliation after hitting Pakistan with missile strike as Kashmir tension soars

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
India preps for possible retaliation after hitting Pakistan with missile strike as Kashmir tension soars

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Tension between the nuclear-armed nations is soaring. Pakistan’s Shehbaz Sharif has vowed to retaliate after Indian strikes killed more than two dozen people.

# data[].attributes.body
This source has a few biases with the main ones being through selection or commission, headline, and source or quote. For the quotes they only quote people from Kashmir which only shows one side of the story. It focuses on the heavy impacts made on locals. This is a bias as it leaves out the other side which may include why these events happened in the first place. This is the same with selection or omission bias. They only talk about details relating to Kashmir but say nothing about India's reasoning behind the attacks. Finally bias by headline. The subheading reads "it's Kashmir that always pays the cost of war." They used this quote from a local but it immediately sets into people's heads that Kashmir is facing all of the attacks but isn't contributing anything back at India before they even read the article.

# data[].attributes.body
The main bias in this article was through word choice. They made sure to say in the article that the areas that were targeted were not associated with the Pakistani military, but with extremist groups. This seems to be included to almost make the acts seem more reasonable as they didn’t directly target the military, but instead other groups that also use violent acts. They also use words like “India argues” this but “Pakistan claims” that. The word claims makes it seem less true. Both “argues” and “claims” are both similar but I feel like “claims" seems less fact based while “argues” seems like there is evidence behind their reasoning.

# data[].attributes.body
There are not as many biases evident in this article as it is the neutral one. Some examples of the source being neutral are its heading, it having both sides of the argument, and it including photos from both sides. The headline talks about both sides. First it says that India was the one who hit Pakistan with the missile, which I would say could be a little biased, but then it explains how India now has to prepare for retaliations and is worried about future danger. It has a mix of both. The article also doesn't select specific parts of the story and omit others. It talks through all the background behind why the attacks happened but also talks about the aftermath. Through photos it also shows both sides. The photos range from Indian aircrafts that were shot down by Pakistan, to pictures of children in the hospital after the missile attacks in Kashmir. The inclusion of both sides adds to the neutral nature of the article.

# data[].attributes.body
This article seems to be more to inform people who are closer to the conflict at hand but also maybe wider audiences as well. The article is from The Hindu which is an Indian newspaper that is in English so it is accessible to a wide variety of people. It might also be to inform people in the U.S about conflicts straight from the source. The article does seem to focus a lot on the local aspects of the conflict on Kashmir so it may not be helpful for people trying to know about the bigger picture.

# data[].attributes.body
I believe that the potential audience for this is just people who want to know about the conflict. The article consists of questions that are then answered by the author. This would be good for people who do not know much about what is going on and want to learn more basic information.

# data[].attributes.body
I believe that the potential audience for this article is mostly just people who want to know about the conflict between Pakistan and India. The article frames it in an easy to understand way so that the information is accessible. CBS is the news company that made the article, and since CBS is a United States based channel it might be more aimed at people living in the U.S.

# data[].attributes.body
The argument/claim seems to be that people in Pakistan are really suffering from the aftermath of the missiles as daily life was really disrupted. It talks about how the locals are trying to recover from the missiles but also watch out in case any more attacks are fired.

# data[].attributes.body
This article seems to lay out a lot of facts but seems to be arguing a tiny bit that what India did was in response to the actions taken against them. They did this through word choice as well as the particular statements that they chose to use while answering questions. But overall the questions they were answering were more them just explaining about what happened.

# data[].attributes.body
This article is more presenting information on the conflict between Pakistan and India rather than making a real claim. It talks about both sides and how they both have reason to be upset/worried about the conflict.

# data[].attributes.body
It is important to consider differing perspectives as everyone has a different history and outlook on the world, and biases are built through this context. By considering these perspectives it helps readers have a better understanding of the varying opinions that are seen. Where people are from, what they have experienced, and so much more is factored into their outlooks on certain topics or situations. Through looking at three sources that all cover the May 7th missile attacks on Kashmir, there is one that seems to be pro Pakistan, one that seems to be pro India, and one that is neutral. The articles take very different approaches on the core subject of these attacks. The article that is pro Pakistan was written by Peerzada Ashiq. Peerzada is originally from Kashmir, and in his article particularly interviewed locals from that same place, where the attacks occurred. In the article he talks about the actions being taken in the town with the locals scrambling saying, “Locals were also seen stockpiling eatables, buying medicines and filling cars with fuel. Kashmir University has postponed all examinations scheduled for this week” (Ashiq 1). Instead of focusing on the larger picture he focuses on the small details. Talking about local colleges and people living in the city. If we just looked at this perspective, we would not see the damage that was done to India before they launched the missiles. This article only focuses on the aftermath in Kashmir. If the author can see himself in the locals' shoes, being from Kashmir, he is more likely to focus on that aspect of the story. By looking at different articles, we can look at articles from people with different backgrounds, which may lead to varying opinions. The second article doesn’t have too much bias but seems to favor India slightly through the information being expressed. The author of this article is named Diya Ashtakala. She went to college in India at St Joseph's College. In the article, questions were answered about the ongoing conflict. When she answered the question “What was Operation Sindoor, the military strikes launched by India?” she responded using a statement by India’s armed forces. This included her saying, “none of the targeted sites were associated with the Pakistani military, but were linked to LeT and Jaish-e-Mohammad (JeM), another extremist group”(Ashtakala 1). By including this perspective as the answer and not including Pakistan’s perspective, this is bias by selection/omission and word choice. Also she used words like “India argues” and “Pakistan claims.” “Argues” seems like a more fact based and evident word than “claims.” When someone “claims” something it almost doesn’t have evidence behind it while “arguments” are more fact based. Again. Reading through this article as well as the first one shows different sides of the issue at hand. If I hadn’t read the second article, I would have never known India’s reasoning behind the missile attacks in the first place. They each give different pieces of the story. The last article was neutral. It was written by Caroline Linton, who is from the United States and is based in Washington, D.C. She has no connection to either country and therefore brings a fresh perspective, which could be a reason behind her less biased article. In her article there is background information on the ongoing disagreement between the countries that sets up for the topic of the article, which is the recent missile attacks. It switches between the two perspectives saying, “India said it had struck infrastructure used by militants linked to last month’s massacre of tourists in the Indian-administered portion of Kashmir” (Linton 1) and then “Pakistan said that at least 26 people died in the missile strikes and five from  artillery exchange along the Line of Control that separates the two countries in Kashmir” (Linton 1). By offering the losses of both sides, it gives room to think about both sides and the reasoning behind the violence that occurred. The author’s fresh view led to an article that represents both sides pretty well. By comparing sources as a reader, it helps me better understand how complex the issue truly is through many different lenses. It isn't one opinion that fits all. Background and history truly make a difference in how events are viewed based on past experiences. I can now use a critical lens to look deeper into the articles to make up my own opinion based on facts present. By looking at all sides of the story I can see that one newspaper article really isn’t sufficient to find out the truth. Varying sources are the best way to get thoughtful and true information. In conclusion, these aspects of differing lives from reporters can account for varying perspectives in sources that readers need to use a critical lens to better understand. I now have a deeper understanding of the topic as well as the varying views on it.