Rebecca’s Article Comparison

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.

Articles Used:


Daily Mail:

Rebecca’s Article Comparison

Gun Control: Issues at Hand and Potential Solutions.

Recently, with the devastating mass school shooting at Parkland High School in Florida, it has raised many controversial conversations about the issue of gun control. The issue of gun control is divided between the Republican and Democratic party, who both have different views of what should be done to prevent horrific events like this from occurring again. I read two articles covering the topic of gun control, one from CNN and one from FOX, which have framed the issue in two different ways which portray their biases.

The first article I read, “Florida Shooting: Gun Control Advocates Rush to Distort the Truth About What Happened in Parkland,” by FOX immediately attacks liberals, saying that they over exaggerate the amount of school shootings that take place in order to bring more support for gun control laws. This immediately brings about the conflict framing, thus showing a divide between the two political parties. Fox makes statements says that gun control advocates proposals will only do more harm than good, by taking away guns from good abiding citizens. Liberals then call for more background checks, which Fox states, comes at a cost. Background checks themselves are costly, and differ price range from state to state. Not only do they cost money, but sometimes background checks can have “false positives,” confusing names of people and taking away guns from those who did nothing wrong. Republicans then say that the answer to gun control is not taking guns away, but rather eliminating gun-free zones. Gun-free zones make the average citizen defenseless, which shooters then have stated, this is why they have chosen these particular places to commit their brutal attacks, because they knew the general public could not defend themselves.

Fox uses the conflict frame, to emphasize their stance on gun control, and to denounce liberal ideals on the gun control issue. Fox is known for having a conservative viewpoint, therefore they state that liberals are too harsh in wanting to take guns away from ordinary citizens, and the issue is not the gun itself, but rather the lack of protection citizens would have if they could arm themselves in order to ensure their safety. But using the conflict frame, makes Fox’s readers feel as if Liberals are trying to take guns away altogether.

The next article that covers the gun control issue was an article by CNN that I read, “Gun Control: So Far, Just Words.” They state that they know that automatic weapons are illegal and have been for a long time. They say that Liberals do not want to eliminate guns all together, but do want to get rid of “bump-stocks,” which increase a guns rate of fire. A bump-stock can then turn a semi-automatic weapon into an automatic weapon, which is what makes mass shooting so devastating, for the amount of bullets a gun is able to fire. They then make the statement that Republicans do not want to have the talk about eliminating bump-stocks because many are skeptical of how for that line would be drawn. Also they are worried about what loopholes would be taken to recreate this device, since it has shown to be simple and non costly.  

CNN uses the conflict frame to show how they believe Republicans are refusing to address the gun control issue. Showing that the two parties do not agree eye to eye on the issue and are refusing to compromise and thus discuss a solution. Using this frame, it shows the reader that the parties are at a great divide. Allowing the reader to focus on the conflict of the issue rather than show the solutions proposed from both sides of the argument. They then also highlight the fact that Republicans are refusing to even talk about the issue at hand, using the conflict frame they are increasing the debate to a more polarized stance.  


By: Heather Freed

Gun Control: Issues at Hand and Potential Solutions.

Media Coverage of Gun Control After Florida School Shooting

Following the Marjory Stoneman Douglass High School shooting, the issue of gun control became a trending media topic. The National Review magazine posted an article online titled “Gun Control Isn’t the Answer.” The BBC News also covered the issue of gun control in an article titled, “Florida school shooting: Students demand tighter gun controls.”  These two sources demonstrate the different way in which media can portray an issue.

The National Review article (The Editors 2018) is in the form of “advocacy.” The article discusses gun control by stating that restrictions to the access of weapons would not be effective. The article also argues that it might also be considered unconstitutional. It also states that the AR rifle used in the shooting was not a weapon that is “exotic,” as it is used regularly for small-game hunting and competitive marksmanship. There is no “moderate” or “common sense” reform possible because the shooter did not fit the image of the person who you shouldn’t sell weapons to.(The Editors 2018) The shooter had no criminal record and had not been considered mentally unstable.

This piece also shows characteristics of heated conflict. It accuses the Left of offering unconstitutional solutions to gun control. It uses words like “stupid,” “dishonest,” and “radical” when critiquing the Left’s “common-sense” solutions.  The sentence that demonstrates the most heated conflict is “the scary-looking black instruments that so repulse our progressive friends.” (The Editors 2018) These kinds of words help demonstrate why this would be an advocacy piece. It is arguing against the gun control solutions posed by the Left.

The BBC news article (BBC News 2018) would be considered a “traditional” form of news. The article covers the students who survived the shooting, and their call to the president and politicians for gun control. It reports on the event in more detail than the National Review piece. It covers who the shooter was, the president’s stance on gun control, and the rally for gun control.  It gives straightforward news. It also includes a quote by a law enforcement officer that argues that adding new laws wouldn’t have prevented the act, instead he blames other agencies for not performing their jobs correctly.

This article did not seem to advocate for one side or the other. Unlike the other article, the BBC news article seemed to aim to inform and to gather as much information as it could on the shooting itself and the students and the civilians demand for gun control. However, this article also uses heated conflict especially when talking about the President. The most prominent example is the quoted from student Emma Gonzalez who says she will “happily” ask how much money he received from the NRA. (BBC News 2018)

The coverage of the National Review article offer the implication that gun reform is not necessary in the sense that the solutions being offered can be seen as unconstitutional. This would also imply that the Left are not being reasonable because they do not know the full details of the AR rifle that was used. The coverage in the BBC news article implies that politicians, and the President, who receive money from the NRA are less likely to want to have gun control. These two articles, and the way they frame their information, demonstrate how news media can have different implications that appease to certain people.

Editors. 2018. “Gun Control Isn’t the Answer.” National Review, February 16. Accessed February 18, 2018.

BBC News. 2018. “Florida school shooting: Students demand tighter gun controls.” BBC News, February 18.  Accessed February 18, 2018.

Media Coverage of Gun Control After Florida School Shooting

Cruz and”bizarre” comments

Although not pertaining to the same instance both the FOX article “GOP 2016 candidate Ted Cruz: California shooting that killed 14 may be act of Islamic terror” and the MSNBC “Ted Cruz: Most violent criminals ‘are Democrats’” pertain to Ted Cruz’s commentary on current issues.

The MSNBC article of course lashes out at the “bizarre” comments Cruz made: most violent criminals are democrats, followed by this being the reason democrats are “soft on crime” – to protect votes. These are comments I don’t think we are used to hearing from Cruz, but probably would not notice if Trump said this. Either way the leap made is astounding. MSNBC calls out the Trump similarity, and continues with chastisement of Cruz by making similar facetious allegations against the Republicans to demonstrate the absurdity of that train of thought.

FOX has an article – about the size of 1 paragraph – on the comment Cruz made post-San Bernadino shooting this week. While at the Republican Jewish Coalition, he asked for a moment of silence since there was “yet another manifestation of… radical Islamic terrorism here at home.” Now this statement is said to have been made when authorities are still investigating motive, suggesting the brevity of the FOX piece is to avoid acknowledging the problem of generalizing this horrific instance for partisan gain.

Had the latter instance been run by MSNBC, I dare say it is obvious it would resemble the first piece with trend and reality check frames used to show how Cruz’s comment was premature.

FOX, on the other hand, had absolutely no mention of Cruz’s violent democrats comment on their site, possibly because their was no way to frame it in a beneficial manner to the republican party.

Cruz and”bizarre” comments

Chicago Police Superintendent Fired – Article Comparison

The Chicago police superintendent, Gary F. McCarthy was fired Tuesday by Mayor Rahm Emanuel after the dash-cam video was released showing the fatal shooting of 17-year-old Laquan McDonald by Officer Jason Van Dyke.

Both Mayor Emanuel and McCarthy have been facing criticism over the handling of the Laquan McDonald case, much of it having to do with the 13 months it took in order to charge Van Dyke and the examination of McCarthy’s credibility and leadership skills.

Both The New York Times and The Washington Post covered this case, and all covering the basics were there. The general information of what had happened, when it had happened, and why was all covered and both projected the same information to that sense. However, the direction each took after that was quite different.

To begin with The New York Times, there was major concentration on Mayor Emanuel and not nearly as much for McCarthy. This concentration focused on Emanuel’s point of view and the problems he has ran into in the mist of the shooting. They began their frame with, “‘He has become an issue, rather than dealing with the issue, and a distraction,’ Mr. Emanuel said of Superintendent Garry F. McCarthy.” Depicting McCarthy’s work and how it was not meeting the standards they should, given that McCarthy has worked in the top law enforcement offices with national recognition. 

The article goes on to discuss how Emanuel was forced into a runoff in the mayor’s race earlier this year due to anger coming from mostly black and Latino neighborhoods regarding the closure of about 50 public schools and a strike led by Chicago school teachers. Although he was re-elected in April, Emanuel is having to face skepticism in regards to police treatment on young black people and the manner McDonald’s case was handle in his office.

Turning to the Washington Post’s article, their concentration was much more on Gary McCarthy and the praises Mayor Emanuel has given him. To begin they opened with a quote from Emanuel saying,”He has become an issue, rather than dealing with the issue, and a distraction,” due to the McDonald case and  They followed with a detailed summary of McCarthy’s past experience in some of the country’s biggest police departments and the positive work he had done to improve those departments. The even quoted Emanuel in McCarthy’s appointment in Chicago in 2011 saying, “he praised him as someone who proved ‘reducing crime and working closely with the community are not conflicting goals.'” However, in spite of his accomplished elsewhere, those of Chicago have not been up to par and the Washington Post is taking note of it. 

Both articles covered the primary problem of this topic and the happenings of it but each took a different route in choosing to discuss extensively about two different people.

Washington Post – Chicago police superintendent fired by mayor amid outcry over video of shooting

New York Times – Mayor Rahm Emanuel Fires Chicago Police Superintendent

Chicago Police Superintendent Fired – Article Comparison

An Endorsement Event or Private Meeting?: An Article Comparison of Trump

Donald Trump has been getting a moderate amount of coverage,however, compared to the coverage he was receiving a couple months ago has decrease significantly. Although Trump is receiving a decent amount of coverage, hardly any of the articles regarding him are deemed front page-worthy. It seems as if his persona, or publicity stunts, have become normalized and usually associated with anything Trump does, so most people do not see it as unusual. While these stories may be controversial, when associated with Donald Trump, they do not surprise people due to the actions being expected from someone like Donald Trump. In this article comparison, two articles regarding Donald Trump’s meeting with a coalition of 100 African American pastors will be analyzed showing both similarities and differences in coverage.

An article from the New York Times titled “Donald Trump’s Big Endorsement Event Quietly Becomes a Private Meeting” focuses mainly on Trump’s campaign. After a “Black Lives Matter protester” was beaten at a Trump rally in Alabama, and Trump’s criticism about that issue stating the protester “deserved” it, Trump’s campaign announced that “100 black pastors” would endorse him publicly (Haberman, 2015). According to pastors that were invited, Trump’s campaign made the gathering seem more like a meeting than an endorsement even. After finding out the endorsement would be announced publicly, many pastors decided not to attend the meeting (endorsement event, whatever this was). While this article focuses on the issues raised by Trump’s campaign, the Ohio pastor, Darrell Scott, the one who planned the event, is traced back to being a part of Trump’s campaign. One can assumed, since D. Scott had planned this event, it may have been influenced by Trump’s campaign team to make the endorsement event seem like a private meeting with Trump.

Link to the article above: Donald Trump’s Big Endorsement Event Quietly Becomes a Private Meeting Photo

The article titled “Donald Trump’s theory about why black clergy won’t publicly endorse him” by The Washington Post, stated “Black Lives Matters activists pressured African American clergy members not to publicly endorse him” (Johnson and Walliams, 2015). Similar to the previous article, this one talks about the tension between Black Lives Matter and Donald Trump. It goes on to state that Trump planned to meet with this coalition of African American pastors privately but then later stated that it would be publicly announced as an endorsement event. This article frames Donald Trump and his campaign in a way that makes it seem as if African Americans support him despite his criticism about the protester who was beaten at one of his rallies. The last thing this article talks about is Trump’s “theology” towards the Black Lives Matter movement.

Link to the article above: Donald Trump’s theory about why black clergy won’t publicly endorse him

Both of these articles are similar in the way they represent the issue on Trump and his Campaign; they both present them in an issue frame, stating that this endorsement event was interpreted as a private meeting, or vice versa, by African American pastors. The first article focuses mainly on the issue on a general level, talking about how it started and how the event was misinterpreted among pastors and Trump’s campaign, while the second article, focuses more on how African American pastors reacted after finding out this “private meeting” was a public endorsement event. Both of these articles seem objective enough to be determined as neutral; however, in the second article, many Trump statements are quoted saying that Trump is “divisive and racist” (Johnson and Williams, 2015). A bias against Donald Trump can be interpreted in the second article, but it does not seem strong enough to only appeal to democrats than republicans.

An Endorsement Event or Private Meeting?: An Article Comparison of Trump

How Media Frames the Cruz-Rubio Feud

During this time of year, as the primary are approaching the end, Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio are two candidates that have clashed and have started a feud between each other. Constant finger-pointing and accusations are becoming more present between them. Some may say this is an act in order to gain publicity for both of these candidates since this is both Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio’s first time running for the primary. While this Cruz-Rubio feud is getting a large amount of coverage, it is interesting to see how these media outlets frame the story. Whether the news story covers the issues of the feud or the candidates personally can say a substantial amount about the news source itself.

In an article discovered from titled “Ted Cruz Refuses to take legal status for undocumented immigrant off the table” the author, V. Hillyard, explains the Cruz-Rubio feud in an interesting way. The title alone makes the article seem like it will be only focusing on Ted Cruz  and his views on immigration; however, the article analyzes the issues in a way that appeals to those that are considered leftists instead of keeping the news objective. Although this is common from a partisan news outlet like MSNBC, this article focuses more on how Ted Cruz would handle immigration, and his aggression towards Marco Rubio regarding the issue. This article is set within an issue frame but in a way that makes Ted Cruz seem irrational compared to Marco Rubio’s views.

Link to the article: Ted Cruz refuses to take legal status for undocumented immigrants off the table

In the second article, from the New York Times titled “Ted Cruz Attacks Marco Rubio on Privacy and Immigration, the author, M. Flegenheimer, briefly touches privacy and immigration issues between Cruz and Rubio; however, this article focuses more on the feud between the two senators on a personal level. The article states that Ted Cruz had attacked Marco Rubio on his views about privacy and immigration, then turns its focus on personal statements Cruz and Rubio say to each other via speeches and social media. Cruz calls Rubio “very, very dismayed” while Rubio’s campaign social media immediately responds by hash-tagging #phonytedcruz. While this article is framed in a game issue by putting emphasis on the Cruz-Rubio feud as a whole instead of focusing on one issue, this article does it in an objective way that may be appreciates by democrats and republicans equally.

Link to the article: Ted Cruz Attacks Marco Rubio on Privacy and Immigration

By analyzing these two articles, some conclusions can be made. The MSNBC article, seeing as it is a partisan media outlet that appeals to democrats, it is no surprise that the author focuses on an issue that is disliked by democrats in order to promote conversation and criticism against the republican candidates. By focusing on the issue in a way that makes it seem that even republican candidates don’t agree with each other may influence democrats to perceive them as less knowledgeable. The second article, while it focuses on the Rubio-Cruz feud in a game frame, does a better job at staying objective. The New York Times article focuses on accusations the candidates say about each other while keeping the article neutral instead of veering too right or too left.

How Media Frames the Cruz-Rubio Feud