President Bush's state of the Union address
President Bush's state of the union address on Tuesday night focused on an international and domestic agendas. Bush has less then two years left in his term and he warned the democratic about not approving his new Iraq strategy; allowing more troops into Iraq. There was no mention of rebuilding new orleans, limiting stem cell research, banning gay marriage or remaking Social sSecurity like he said he would 2 years ago. Another domestic propsal included taking steps toward a balanced budget, dealing with the long-term financial condition of Social Security and Medicare, and imposing tighter standards on schools. He got a "polite reception" from the Democrats in the crowd even though he spoke with a confident tone.
The New York Times used a lot of jargon in this article. Examples are "bipartisan resolution" and "exert some leverage by accusing Democrats of intransigence." They quoted the words that Bush used but did not explain what those words meant. This could confuse a reader. The lead contained an opinion. "President Bush tried to resuscitate his ailing presidency Tuesday night, using his State of the Union address to present a modest agenda of energy and health care proposals while warning an increasingly assertive Congress against undercutting his new Iraq strategy." Not everyone may think that his presidenct is in trouble or that Congress is assertive. This puts a bias on the whole story and shows a disliking for the president. The article explained the actions that would result from his proposals and how Congress might react. There were a lot of quotes responding to his speech.
The Pioneer Press also covered President Bush's State of the Union address. The lead also wasn't objective; "President Bush used his State of the Union address Tuesday night to try to revive his presidency against what may be the greatest odds any chief executive has faced in a generation." His presidency might not need reviving or he may not be facing the greatest odds any president has faced. This article assumed that the "president's problems all stem from the same reality." The author made many assumptions and this led to a biased report. It isn't untill the fifth paragraph that the author let the reader know what was in President Bush's speech.
I think the New York Times did a better job reporting because it mentioned the key things in Bush's speech right away. It was more engaging from the begining, where as in the Pioneer Press I had to wait until the fifth paragraph to learn what Bush actually said in his speech. If I was actually reading the article in the Pioneer Press, I would have quit reading because it didn't tell me the important information. The Pioneer Press was also more biased against the president.