You're going to expand your Outline to include the new prompts after briefly covering the basics. You'll find some quick questions to help guide you and check off as your review your paper:
- Briefly explaining the subject of the article and naming your sources.
- Briefly state the areas of commonality (a minimum of 3 areas of similarity between the articles).
- Briefly state the substantive differences (a minimum of 3 substantive differences in the information) between the two articles.
Turning from what you established in the Outline, the next prompts are new and unique to the Narrative.
- Explore and discuss what you think the impact is of these substantive differences on the average reader if they only had access to one of these article about this even. Would they be biased or fully knowledgeable? If so, why, how, and which way?
- Blend the information from the two sources to craft a complete (as possible) overview of the incident that could fully inform a reader.
- Conclude your paper in a firm way to tie up all/any loose ends. Consider discussing what you think about ethic in media based on these articles and what you found during this project.
Full Answer Section
Substantive differences:
The main substantive difference between the two articles is their level of analysis. The New York Times article is more in-depth and provides more context for the events of January 6th. It also discusses the long-term implications of the attack in more detail.
Another substantive difference is the way the two articles frame the events of January 6th. The New York Times article uses more neutral language, while the NPR article uses more emotive language. For example, the New York Times article uses the phrase "pro-Trump rioters" to describe the people who attacked the Capitol, while the NPR article uses the phrase "violent mob."
Impact of substantive differences on the average reader:
The substantive differences between the two articles could have a significant impact on the average reader. The NPR article is more likely to evoke an emotional response from the reader, while the New York Times article is more likely to provide the reader with a comprehensive and objective overview of the events of January 6th.
If a reader only had access to one of these articles about this event, they might be biased or not fully knowledgeable about the events of January 6th. For example, if a reader only read the NPR article, they might come away with the impression that the January 6th attack was a spontaneous act of violence by a group of angry Trump supporters. However, if a reader only read the New York Times article, they might come away with the impression that the January 6th attack was a well-planned attempt to overthrow the US government.
Complete overview of the incident:
On January 6, 2021, a mob of pro-Trump supporters stormed the US Capitol building in an attempt to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election. The mob was incited by former President Donald Trump, who had repeatedly made false claims that the election had been stolen from him.
The rioters broke into the Capitol building and vandalized it, stole government property, and assaulted police officers. Five people died in the attack, including one Capitol Police officer.
The January 6th attack was a serious assault on American democracy. It was the first time since the War of 1812 that the US Capitol had been overrun by an enemy force.
Conclusion:
The January 6th attack was a watershed moment in American history. It is important to understand the events of that day and their implications for the future of American democracy.
Ethics in the media:
The two articles I reviewed are both from reputable news organizations. However, there are some subtle differences in the way they frame the events of January 6th. The NPR article is more likely to evoke an emotional response from the reader, while the New York Times article is more likely to provide the reader with a comprehensive and objective overview of the events of that day.
I believe that it is important for journalists to present the facts of a news story in a neutral way. Journalists should avoid using emotive language or framing events in a way that could bias the reader.
Overall, I believe that the New York Times article is the more ethical and reliable source of information about the January 6th attack on the US Capitol.
Sample Answer
Expanding the Outline
Subject of the article and sources:
This paper will compare and contrast two articles about the same news event: the January 6th attack on the US Capitol. The first article is "The January 6th Attack on the Capitol: A Timeline of Events" by The New York Times, and the second article is "The January 6th Attack on the Capitol: What We Know So Far" by National Public Radio (NPR).
Areas of commonality:
Both articles provide a detailed timeline of the events of January 6th, from the morning rally at the Ellipse to the storming of the Capitol building. They also both discuss the motivations of the rioters, the role of former President Donald Trump, and the aftermath of the attack.