Please read the two newspaper articles (one from The Guardian, the other from The Wall Street Journal; they are in your course pack). In your post, please address the following:
While both of these articles were published on the same day by large, internationally distributed newspapers, and offer reporting on the exact same event (Hillary Clinton’s official campaign announcement for the 2016 presidential nomination), they are very different pieces of writing. What are some of the differences you can identify? What conclusions can you draw from the existence of these differences?
Generally what percentage of the quoted statements, factual information, and descriptions in each article are direct reporting on the event itself? What percentage of the quoted statements, factual information, and descriptions in each article are offering contextual information from research outside of the event? How does each piece employ this researched information? To support something said/stated at/about the event? To discredit something said/stated at/about the event?
Can you identify an agenda/bias present in either article? If so, how? If not, what do you feel might be the rationale behind the decision of each article to include the contextualizing “research” they did?
Can you identify any factual errors in either article? Does either article contradict the facts of the other? What does your answer teach us about the difference between truth and fact and its relationship to bias?
Your post length should be 1,000 words (approximately 250 words for each question). Use MLA citations as needed. Additionally, respond substantively (300-400 words) to the posts of two peers.