The articles that I have decided to compare both cover the same news story, the shooting that occurred in Florida this past week and the comments that President Trump’s administration made about the shooting being a “reprieve” from the bad publicity that currently plagues the administration.
Whilst both of the articles covered the general facts of the event, they focused on a number of different subtopics.
The Daily Mail used their article to promote other news stories that they had broken about the Trump Administration such as Rob Porter who allegedly abused his ex-wives. This deflects from the main purpose of the article and exposes you to other stories that are unravelling at the same time as the current one being written about.
The Daily Mail article is more sensationalist in its use of language and choice of topics and refers multiple times to affairs that it is alleged the President had. The extent of the sensationalism in the CNN article was when President Trump’s tweeting was described as “ranting.”
The wording by the Daily Mail article is quite interesting, as the article starts they use phrases such as “Then it was found” and “First it was revealed”, phrases which seem disapproving of the administration, this theme continues throughout and even when references are made to trips which the President is due to take, the author makes sure he passes comment on the fact that the scandals will “resurface.” The wording in the CNN article seems to be unbiased, there are limited clear personal opinions allowing for the article to be very to the point. I found this style of journalism to be particularly intriguing as it shows the difficulties that exist when attempting to write an article from a non-partisan point of view.
The length of the article also varies between the two selected. The CNN articles seems more to the point whereas as the Daily Mail article brings in other stories that are also related it is much longer in length. This is both good and bad, the CNN article gives you the story that you’re clearly interested in, the key facts that relate whereas the Daily Mail article not only gives you the story at hand but others that are related. For a reader this amount of coverage would easily sway you in favour of the author of the piece, one would assume from reading the Daily Mail article that the administration is currently suffering whereas this is not as evident in the CNN article.
The CNN article refers to other news sources and credits them for specific information (The Washington Post) whereas in the Daily Mail article, in addition to the Washington Post being credited in the body text of the article there is a “read more” section with a link to a New York Times article that covers the same story. I believe this to be an admirable quality of both articles to credit other sources as it gives the article more strength and reaffirms journalistic integrity.
I found it particularly interesting that the CNN article ends with a comment on gun control, that the President is to hold “a session with high schoolers” whereas this is not mentioned in the Daily Mail article. This is due to the fact that both articles are attempting to appeal to different political demographics and consequently cover different subtopics under the main topic.