Rowley News Blog!

Coverage of the first Presidential debate could and still can be found addressed in many news sources around the nation and also in a few international sources. I skimmed through a couple of online news sources, one local, one national and one international. The first was the Minnesota Daily, which had a couple of articles pertaining to the debate. One touching on student interest, where/how they gathered to view the debate, and also some of their reactions. The other focused purely on the debate of the economy and the current situation. A national source I looked at was the New York Times, a source which also contained several articles of certain issues or areas of the debate. The article that I took a closer look at discussed the disagreements between the two candidates views on economic policy and our situation in Iraq. The third source a chose to look at was BBC News. The article I found to be the most relevant or to contain the most coverage of the first presidential debate was somewhat of an overview of the entire debate. It touched on the major arguments and also gave the author's personal opinion on the debate. Kevin Conolly, the author of the BBC article, thought that both of the candidates were very cautious but neither very compelling.

Posted by MegRow at 3:52 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I chose to read an article with the potentially same topic from the following three online sources: USA Today, The New York Times, and The Wall Street Journal. Here are links to the 3 articles.

Download file

Download file

Download file

Surprisingly I did not see or at least catch a whole lot of bias differentiation between the articles from the separate sources. I did recognize that both The New York Times (NYT) and The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) had pieces with a much more substantial length and depth of information. This is most likely because these two sources primarily focus on the United States, its economy, and Wall Street. Also, all three articles used quotes from secondary journalistic sources. For example, the Wall Street Journal article used bits and pieces of interview from both ABC’s “This Week� and Fox News Sunday. I am not entirely sure whether one would consider this beneficial or immoral, seeing as though the interview may not have been directed specifically at the topic of this particular article.
I personally found the New York Times’ article to contain the most factual details and solid coverage of the information delivered. I also discovered that this same article contained what appeared to be the most reliable and credible sources. Although each article included many institutional sources, I felt that the one chosen from the NYT contained the most amply variation of sources.
After reading all 3 of the article I sensed that the piece from USA Today took the harshest angle or position to the issue. From the start of the article the writer refers to “toxic assets,� immediately creating a negative connotation with the matter.
Overall I thought the New York Times did the best job of reporting the issue to the audience with the greatest amount of evidence.

Posted by MegRow at 6:54 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)