2016’s first Presidential Debate was the obvious first choice for breaking political news across the country. People everywhere had their own opinions, concerns and observations concerning the two candidates- including The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times.
The two articles chosen for analysis related the winner of the debate.
From the Wall Street Journal:
And the Winner of the Trump-Clinton Debate Was…
From the New York Times:
Debate Takeaways: Hillary Clinton Digs In and Prevails
The two stories emphasize Clinton’s tactic to provoke Trump’s poor word choice concerning Muslims, Hispanics and his attitude towards women.
The Wall Street Journal clearly points this out using some-what biased language with words such as “Her do-or-die goal” to “cut down Mr. Trump”. This article fails to provide any information about Trump’s tactics to expose Clinton’s flaws or how he planned to win over doubtful viewers. This article was extremely biased, using the first person to express the writer’s opinion on only what Donald did right (not wrong) and what Clinton did to make Trump look like the less likely candidate. The writer states that the winner of the debate was Trump expressing that he felt the debate should not have been a close call. The comments made by readers to the writer’s article was in support of the opinion as they also provided their thoughts and concerns about Hillary’s potential election as president.
All in all, The Wall Street Journal maintains a biased, conservative point of view which is clearly demonstrated in the article.
The New York Times article was the opposite of what was presented in The Wall Street Journal article. This author was extremely careful of using non-biased, third person language using words such as, “appeared to gain” and “seems to have beasted”. The writer, like the writer of The Wall Street Journal also highlighted Hillary’s tactic to get a rise out of Donald Trump concerning women, race and national security. The writer was careful to highlight strong points from both candidates and was factually correct when expressing the victor of the debate to be Hillary Clinton. There was no language used in this article that suggest the writers were trying to slant the view of the debate in favor of one candidate or another. Although the writer did a fair job keeping an objective, factual point of view it seems as if the article did highlight more of where Trump went wrong and his failure to do his research in order to combat Clinton’s jabs.
The New York Times remains objective in their writing style as they factually support why Hillary Clinton in the winner of the debate.
Although this is something observed it must be wondered, was the author for the New York Times piece being slightly biased or was he just bringing attention to the things viewers all witnessed during the debate? It is ironic that both papers have two different winners but were watching the same exact program.
Who’s to say either writer is trying to sway opinions? Politics is like a drug, the scary part is that this drug will effect ALL of America is just a few months.