No two articles are the same. Even if the topic is similar, the writing can be very different. One article could agree with the topic, and the other could disagree. Or both could hold the same views, but express it in a completely different style, and go about convincing others using different words and tones.
In this case, two articles about the new health care plan made by Donald Trump take this approach. The first article, "Donald Trump releases health care reform plan," immediately shows how the writer dislikes the plan, due to installing doubt by saying the plan "aims" to improve healthcare by making it more affordable and better. The word "aims" causes someone to think that they are trying to but won't actually succeed. The second article, "House Republicans Unveil Plan to Replace Health Law," begins by showing a more neutral tone towards the topic. However, it does show how the plan will be more controversial. It does this through saying how there will be a "bitter debate" over the plan. This also implies how the plan could be bad as "bitter" implies bad and unlikable.
The first article also mentions how Trump had continuously said that all Americans will be insured, but in the plan there is no mention of this important rule. Bringing up this fact helps to spread the idea that Trump often says promises that won't be made and causes for us to have even more doubt over the plan. Immediately after this, the article says "Instead, Trump's plan." by saying instead, the article implies that the reality is the complete opposite of what has been sat it would be. This could cause for readers to side more with the article, as they would be led to believe that the plan is exactly the opposite of what was being promised.
Meanwhile, the second article gives information about the plan in a more neutral tone. Still, when talking about some of the extremes of the plan, it uses words such as "significant" and "penalty." This causes people to think of the plan as being more extreme and dangerous, if not all the criteria are met or if something goes wrong. Also, the phrase "Republicans hope to undo" implies how despite Republicans wanting to replace Obamacare, they probably won't be able to do it. The article also states how there was no price estimate given. This also causes doubt over the plan, as the amount of money something costs plays a big part in whether we want it or not. It also includes the fact that four Republican Senators signed saying that they thought that the plan did not "adequately protect" people in their states. This was included to show how even the people who should support the plan, actually agree with it. This would cause someone who is still undecided to think that why should they support it if people ion the other side don't even support it.
All in all, these two articles have very similar opinions over the new health care plans. They are both also used to convince readers to side against it. However, they have very different methods for convincing readers of the same conclusion: that the new healthcare plan will be unsuccessful and shouldn't be supported.
also. one interesting fact about the first article: the year is 2016 when it should've been 2017
read the articles here: article 1- http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/02/policitics/donald-trump-health-care-plan/
article 2- https://www.nytimes/com/2017/03/06/us/politics/affordable-care-act-obamacare-health.html
In this case, two articles about the new health care plan made by Donald Trump take this approach. The first article, "Donald Trump releases health care reform plan," immediately shows how the writer dislikes the plan, due to installing doubt by saying the plan "aims" to improve healthcare by making it more affordable and better. The word "aims" causes someone to think that they are trying to but won't actually succeed. The second article, "House Republicans Unveil Plan to Replace Health Law," begins by showing a more neutral tone towards the topic. However, it does show how the plan will be more controversial. It does this through saying how there will be a "bitter debate" over the plan. This also implies how the plan could be bad as "bitter" implies bad and unlikable.
The first article also mentions how Trump had continuously said that all Americans will be insured, but in the plan there is no mention of this important rule. Bringing up this fact helps to spread the idea that Trump often says promises that won't be made and causes for us to have even more doubt over the plan. Immediately after this, the article says "Instead, Trump's plan." by saying instead, the article implies that the reality is the complete opposite of what has been sat it would be. This could cause for readers to side more with the article, as they would be led to believe that the plan is exactly the opposite of what was being promised.
Meanwhile, the second article gives information about the plan in a more neutral tone. Still, when talking about some of the extremes of the plan, it uses words such as "significant" and "penalty." This causes people to think of the plan as being more extreme and dangerous, if not all the criteria are met or if something goes wrong. Also, the phrase "Republicans hope to undo" implies how despite Republicans wanting to replace Obamacare, they probably won't be able to do it. The article also states how there was no price estimate given. This also causes doubt over the plan, as the amount of money something costs plays a big part in whether we want it or not. It also includes the fact that four Republican Senators signed saying that they thought that the plan did not "adequately protect" people in their states. This was included to show how even the people who should support the plan, actually agree with it. This would cause someone who is still undecided to think that why should they support it if people ion the other side don't even support it.
All in all, these two articles have very similar opinions over the new health care plans. They are both also used to convince readers to side against it. However, they have very different methods for convincing readers of the same conclusion: that the new healthcare plan will be unsuccessful and shouldn't be supported.
also. one interesting fact about the first article: the year is 2016 when it should've been 2017
read the articles here: article 1- http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/02/policitics/donald-trump-health-care-plan/
article 2- https://www.nytimes/com/2017/03/06/us/politics/affordable-care-act-obamacare-health.html
I agree with what you said, especially that even articles on the same topic supporting the same side could be presented in different ways. I agree that the words used in an article have an impact on the reader, making them lean one way more than the other. I would like to see the differences between opposing views on the same topic and how they present their arguments. I would also like to hear your opinion as to why people present their views the way they do, and how they are influenced by other factors.
ReplyDelete