The articles I’ve chosen to compare are from The Daily Wire and The New York Times, both of which cover the nomination of Nancy Pelosi as speaker of the House. The Daily Wire covers the topic in a overtly negative manner while the New York Times seems to cover it with less bias.
In the Daily wire piece written by Emily Zanotti the description of events was accurate but also filled with subtle and not so subtle jabs at the democratic party and Nancy Pelosi. In the piece not only did it seem like the Nancy Pelosi was being personally criticized but the Democratic Party seemed to be mocked. The issue discussed was not put in a polarized or conflict frame as much as parliamentary tactics were discussed. Zanotti mocks the tactics she thinks are used by the Democratic party and Pelosi to hold and flaunt her position of power. Zanotti saw Pelosi’s actions to winning the election as a sort of peacocking, “She ran an uncontested race but took a victory lap anyway”. Zanotti further pointed out the how the Democratic party tried create a false image of Pelosi by calling for a paper vote rather than a voice vote “ostensibly sparing Pelosi the embarrassment of a non-unanimous vote”. Her coverage of Adam Schiff’s reaction perfectly showed her bias that she was clearly not trying to hide, “There was at least one man who was moved by Pelosi’s re-election, Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA)… “weeping as he made his declaration… Embarrassing”.
The coverage of this event shifted to a significantly more bipartisan and less biased lens under The New York Times piece written by Julie Hirschfeld Davis. Davis acknowledged that Pelosi won in an easy manner but pointed out how 32 democrats “defected”, as did Zanotti, from her signaling possible difficulty in the future. The piece also talked about the perceived strong arming tactics Pelosi uses to stay in power, however the author hid her own reaction to this better than Zannotti does. Davis states how Pelosi and a leadership team that have stayed in power for ten years is “a remarkable reality for a party whose new face is one of generational, racial and cultural transformation”. She paints this more as surprising and interesting but not in a negative manner such as the daily wire piece. This piece also goes into more details about the democratic parties internal positions and who won which seat than The Daily Wire. Seemingly more interested in the entire parties workings rather than just attempting to paint Nancy Pelosi and other Democrats in a negative light.
The Daily Wire piece is more determined to in Zannotti’s mind to expose a party and actions of some members in order to lessen the credibility of the Democratic Party. On the other end the New York Times piece attempts to lay out what happened and what it means in an impartial manner. The bias was clear in Zannotti’s piece but she did not try and hide it clearly trying to target a particular audience rather than a neutral one. The New York Times author Davis hid her personal piece well by comparison. However, both pieces came from a disorder bias, covering that specific piece of news from a viewpoint of government disorder. Both pieces picked up on dissenters from Pelosi’s vote of which she tried to gloss over and declare an overwhelming success. Both pieces in turn highlighted a possible division in the party that has had the same leadership for a while now, albeit in different forms.
Another aspect that was different but not drastically was the impoliteness present in Zannotti’s article compared to Davis’s. Impoliteness, or the disregard for social norms as defined in Twitter versus Facebook: Comparing incivility, impoliteness, and deliberative attributes. Zannotti clearly took a shot at Adam Schiff when she called his actions “embarrassing”. Now it is only one example that stands out but throwing it in shows the underlying personal bias that was not as present in the piece by Davis. Overall both pieces do a good job of telling what happened, however Zannotti lets her personal bias shine when describing the parliamentary tactics used by Pelosi while Davis makes more of an attempt to hide hers. In the end the same story paints somewhat different pictures with one being that Pelosi is a strong arming bully that isn’t as secure in her position as she wants others to believe. The other being a cautionary warning that a perennial political leader might have some new opposition.