A) In the first site the author tried to keep the story has unbiased as possible. They did not use a specific side, liberal or conservative, to explain this story. The word choice was descriptive to try and give a gruesome take on the situation. Some words used were "fierce gun battle", "suffered", and "heavily guarded". The Guardian site is very liberal. They report this story specifically about one journalist being shot, while the first site talked about several casualties. The Guardian takes the position that leans towards guns being wrong in the way that they described the shootings. The BBC site is more liberal. They portray the story in the same way as The Guardian. Both the Guardian and the BBC site report the story talking about the specific journalist that was shot, Nils Horis. The Guardian has quotes in their story that portray the man as an innocent bystander. Some of the quotes make him seem so calm and reserved. One quote said he was simply walking to a cook to interview him, then he was shot in the head. This portrayal of the man could be true, but I was not there to witness him demeanor, just an observation of how they described him.
B) The title for all of the sites are similar. The titles are about how much money the Colorado tax on marijuana has brought in. They say that Colorado has gather $2 million. All four articles were worded very closely together. They go in to detail about when the sales started, January, how much of a tax they started with, and if the marijuana was medicinal or recreational. I thought the last site did the best of giving a background on the story. The two middle sites lacked some detail and did not have the statistical evidence to back up their side like the first and the fourth did. The first site talked more about how the leaders of the State felt on this topic in general. This site had quotes from Senators and facts about each tax and the total revenue. The last site has a comparison aspect to it that I liked. It told us how much money they make in liquor tax. This interests me because liquor and pot are two topics that are highly debated.
C) The first site has a picture of women with signs protesting the shut down of the last rural abortion clinic in Texas. This is interesting because Texas is perceived as a pro-choice state. They recently passed an anti-choice law this past summer. This site also goes in to depth about how it is inconvenient for some of the women in this area of Texas to access certain reproduction clinics. The second site has the title that speaks to how upset the women in Texas are. They use the word "uproar". This word has power and meaning. So far both sites have talked about how this clinic was closed in one of the poorest cities in the area. In my opinion, wealth of a city should not be a factor in whether or not a town can have a clinic. This site describes the reasons that women come to abortion clinics is because they want "safe, compassionate help" with their abortions. That statement is very contradictory because abortion is neither of those. Abortion is when you willingly kill another human being. In the third site, the author has a quote from a worker from one of the clinics. They say that by closing their clinic they are hurting their business, but more importantly they are hurting the women who seek refuge in their assistance. These three sites are portraying abortion as a good thing that women should be allowed to decide on. This is a very liberal view because liberals are pro-choice. By having these views on abortion, they did not report the story in an unbiased manner.
No comments:
Post a Comment