Daily Signals In The Washington Times
The first article over gun control on the Daily Signal was more detailed than the second on the Washington Times. The Washington Times article uses quotes that are more dramatic and the Daily Signal uses more factual information to inform the reader.
The Daily Signal article tries harder to make it appear as if President Obama truly doesn't know what he is talking about and is a coward. It is more drawn out and includes videos and more passionate quotes. I guess it could be considered biased due to the wording. The text includes things like, “what the president knows about guns “wouldn’t fill a thimble.”, “We know a liar when we see one. We also know a political coward when we see one,” and other things said by Lapierre to encourage people …show more content…
The writer mainly used Lapierre words instead of their own. The article consists of a brief description over who Lapierre is and then quotes from him. Yet, even with the lack of the writer's words the article is still passionate and forceful. He places Lapierre's words at their most potent moment. Lapierre still pointed out that he thought our current and possible future presidents will be our downfall as he did in the other article, but the second article seems more confrontational. Almost as if he was on a box calling for action on a street corner when he spoke. In this article Lapierre responds to Hillary Clinton saying, “Stand up to gun lobby.” To which Lapierre basically says, “Come at me.” He claims he he is armed and ready to defend the second amendment. The quotes used are more likely to get a rise out of the reader and to create a sense of patriotism. “Mrs. Clinton, If you want to come after the NRA, and if you want to fight over the God-given rights of America’s 100 million gun owners, if you want to turn this election into a bare-knuckled brawl for the survival of our constitutional freedoms, bring it on,” and “We aren’t going anywhere, and we aren’t hard to find,” Mr. LaPierre said. “Mrs. Clinton, we are the millions of honest, decent citizens all over this country. We love our nation. We cherish our freedom. And November, we’re bringing the fight to you.” Is basically the article. When he …show more content…
His knowledge on that issue wouldn’t fill a thimble, and he knows it. I would clean his clock, and he knows it.” But Lapierre is the executive vice president and CEO of the National Rifle Association and President Obama is a democratic man who has to focus on all areas of the country, rather than one individual issue. President Obama may not be able to put all the energy into gun laws and researching all the necessary data. Lapierre, on the other hand, is as successful as he is in the NRA due to his effort and devotion to the association. Of course he would be more prepared in a debate over the subject.
Then there are sections of the article where the journalist describes what Lapierre believes, like; after the recent reforms on gun control the death by gun rate has gone up, or that Lapierre believes that the regulations being put into place will only affect the law abiding citizens poorly. Those sections don’t need to be explained because those are just beliefs and show his
The Daily Signal article tries harder to make it appear as if President Obama truly doesn't know what he is talking about and is a coward. It is more drawn out and includes videos and more passionate quotes. I guess it could be considered biased due to the wording. The text includes things like, “what the president knows about guns “wouldn’t fill a thimble.”, “We know a liar when we see one. We also know a political coward when we see one,” and other things said by Lapierre to encourage people …show more content…
The writer mainly used Lapierre words instead of their own. The article consists of a brief description over who Lapierre is and then quotes from him. Yet, even with the lack of the writer's words the article is still passionate and forceful. He places Lapierre's words at their most potent moment. Lapierre still pointed out that he thought our current and possible future presidents will be our downfall as he did in the other article, but the second article seems more confrontational. Almost as if he was on a box calling for action on a street corner when he spoke. In this article Lapierre responds to Hillary Clinton saying, “Stand up to gun lobby.” To which Lapierre basically says, “Come at me.” He claims he he is armed and ready to defend the second amendment. The quotes used are more likely to get a rise out of the reader and to create a sense of patriotism. “Mrs. Clinton, If you want to come after the NRA, and if you want to fight over the God-given rights of America’s 100 million gun owners, if you want to turn this election into a bare-knuckled brawl for the survival of our constitutional freedoms, bring it on,” and “We aren’t going anywhere, and we aren’t hard to find,” Mr. LaPierre said. “Mrs. Clinton, we are the millions of honest, decent citizens all over this country. We love our nation. We cherish our freedom. And November, we’re bringing the fight to you.” Is basically the article. When he …show more content…
His knowledge on that issue wouldn’t fill a thimble, and he knows it. I would clean his clock, and he knows it.” But Lapierre is the executive vice president and CEO of the National Rifle Association and President Obama is a democratic man who has to focus on all areas of the country, rather than one individual issue. President Obama may not be able to put all the energy into gun laws and researching all the necessary data. Lapierre, on the other hand, is as successful as he is in the NRA due to his effort and devotion to the association. Of course he would be more prepared in a debate over the subject.
Then there are sections of the article where the journalist describes what Lapierre believes, like; after the recent reforms on gun control the death by gun rate has gone up, or that Lapierre believes that the regulations being put into place will only affect the law abiding citizens poorly. Those sections don’t need to be explained because those are just beliefs and show his