Recently, in a meeting with China’s president Xi Jinping, Donald Trump expressed his belief that the trade war would come to an end sooner rather than later. The two articles I analyzed discussed many, if not all, of the same issues and controversies surrounding the trade war with China. The two articles come from CNBC and The Washington Post, and both unravel and examine the different political and economic impacts surrounding the recent meeting between Xi and Trump. Both articles, while presenting a factual representation of the event, focus a little too heavily on the conflict frame with a slight watchdog perspective as well.
In the CNBC article, “ ‘I am Tariff man’: Trump Threatens to Restart Trade War if China Talks Fail” Jacob Pramuk, the author, uncover and delves deep into the strained relationship between China and Trump. The construction of this article, although clearly articulating the events, quotes, facts, and official statements, focuses a little too heavily on the tense relationship between Trump and China. The contents of the conflict remain clearly overshadowed by the interesting and entertainment worthy disdain portrayed within the trade relations between Trump and China. The actual headline of the article, as stated earlier, clearly reflects the media’s focus and portrayal of this trade conflict. The use of language tactics also clearly strengthens this not-so-subliminal implication of tension between our leader and China. Words and phrases such as, “sparked concerns” and “threatened” clearly indicate a conflict between the two leaders. 
Similarly, The Washington Post article, “ ‘I am Tariff Man’ Trump declares, as China talks show signs of sputtering” authored by Damien Paletta, also clearly frames the conflict between Trump and China. In an almost identical manner, This Washington Post article presents and articulates the facts and issues surrounding the trade war with China to highlight the strenuous relationship between Trump and China. As we also saw with the CNBC article, this article also presents a captivating and clearly contentious headline to indicate a conflict within its contents. Where the CNBC article presented direct pictorial Twitter quotations from Trump himself, this Washington Post article paraphrased Trumps tweets which, either advertently or inadvertently, led to a heightened presence of combative language. This article presented similar words and phrases such as “threatening” while also introducing new and increasingly more antagonistic connotations such as “slap” and “abuse”. The language utilized within both articles clearly presents a conflict frame that focuses on the negative relationship between China and Trump. In effect, their intense focus on the conflict frame overshadows the real-world implications of the trade war throughout the US and the world.
While the main focus of both articles surrounds the conflict between Trump and China, each article also analyzes and patrols the political fallacies and insinuations, about the trade war, published by Trump and the White House. Trump, according to the CNBC article, continues to publicize and promote the positive effects of the tariffs upon the US economy. In reaction to this claim, the CNBC article clarified the inaccuracies and mentioned the negative effects inflicted through tariffs as a way to halt and highlight the mis/disinformation from the White House. Similarly and dissimilarly, to emphasize the confusing and potential mis/disinformation from the white house, the Washington Post article casted skepticism upon all claims made about the trade deal that originated within the White House. Utilizing interviews with economic experts and conflicting reports from the White House, the Washington Post strives to patrol the political entities from promoting potential misleading and volatile information to the media. Each article, by acting as a political watchdog, allows readers to understand and interpret, on their own accord, not only the impacts of the issue at hand but also clarify the confusing and conflicting information provided directly within the White House.
After analyzing these two similar articles, a clear perception that the article, although providing some information, focuses its contents on conflict and criticism rather than economic or societal implications. As noted by Atkinson “This is the information most Americans say they want from the news—an explanation of how legislation will affect people like themselves and resolve problems” (28). The watchdog aspect of both articles provides a helpful insight into the confusion and mis/disinformation surrounding the trade war, yet the articles gloss over important societal and economic implications within American and worldwide society. Graber and Dunaway mention “Media… interpret the events’ meanings, put them into context, and speculate their consequences… The kind of Interpretation affects the political consequences of media reports” (10). After comparing both articles to Graber and Dunaway’s explanation and interpretation of the media watchdog, it becomes clear that these articles effectively achieve steps one and two, yet fail to speculate the consequences on a deep and meaningful level.
Overall, both articles identify and unravel the conflict in a manner that focuses their attention solely on conflict and criticism. The articles nearly mirror one and other in content and analyzation representing the media’s lack of news coverage diversity and a general blind focus on Trump. To the credit of both articles, the trade war and the tension between Trump and China remain important and necessary news information within society. In the end, both articles generally inform, provide new insightful information, clear up confusion, and criticize the trade war story. Yet despite all this helpful commentary, each article falls short on providing insightful implications and consequences of the aforementioned events.
Atkinson, Mary Layton, “Combative Politics.”28.
 Dunaway, Johanna and Doris A. Graber “Mass Media and American Politics.” 10.