Lundquistblog

From what I have read about the debate on Friday in the media there seems to be a lot of different opinions about how it went and who won.
There were two things that I found in common between two articles and that was how different the two candidates are. They didn't always refer to their political differences but also their physical and generational differences.
This was the main point of an articles from the Star Tribune. http://www.startribune.com/politics/national/president/29828149.html?page=1&c=y
The first difference the article talked about was the difference in their appearance; Obama being the tall, young black man and McCain is an old, short, white man. The article also talked about their differences on dealing with hostile nations like Iran.
Another article that focused on the differences between McCain and Obama was one from the New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/27/us/politics/27watch.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&ref=politics&adxnnlx=1222740285-YNOxXOdVJa+9RkpE0ADn7w
This article chose to focus on the generational gap between the two candidates and how it showed during the debate. One example the article gave was how McCain kept refering to old, past leaders like Eisenhower, while Obama used more up to date references, like talking about Google.
The third article I read was from Newsweek and it was all about fact checking what the candidates said.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/161148
I thought it was very interesting because I think that when the candidates quote people or talk about statistics and that kind of thing, many people don't even think to consider that those facts might not be true. Or they don't believe the candidate they don't agree with but like to think that everything their candidate is saying is true. So I think its good to have people that are looking into what they are saying and letting us know if what they are saying is true or not.

Posted by lund0963 at 3:13 AM | Permalink

For this entry I tried to find three articles that covered different aspects of the economic crisis on Wall Street. An article on the front page of the Sunday Star Tribune takes a local angle and covers the effects the crisis is having on the middle class. It uses two middle class Minnesota families to show how it might affect people here. Being a local, Minnesota newspaper the focus of the stories is going to be on subjects that will be of interest to Minnesotans so that’s why I think they chose to give this story this particular angle and place it in an area of such prominence.
The second story I chose is from the Wall Street Journal. Below is the link. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122191819568460053.html
It discussed the $700 billion bailout the government is asking Congress to grant in order to try and halt the financial crisis. Since this paper is targeted towards people who are very familiar with how Wall Street works the article is very technical and goes into a lot of detail about what the plan would entail and how it could work to help the current situation. Since I don’t know a lot about Wall Street I found it very confusing but I am sure someone who knows more about how all of that works would find the article very informative.
The third article is from the Chicago Tribune. The link is below.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-oped0921mccarronsep21,0,488924.story
It gives a very different look than the previous two articles. While those were different in their content they were similar in that they only reported the facts and the only type of opinion came through quotes from interviews. This article though was very opinionated and the writer was not afraid to blame the Bush administration and the Republicans for the current situation.

Posted by lund0963 at 8:13 PM | Permalink