Instructions:

find an editorial depicting some form of the democratic process (e. g. exerting influence on elections, creating images of leaders, shaping attitudes) at the local, state and national levels.

give the title, author, date of issue and a brief summary of the discussion. with what kind of subject matter does it deal? what is the editor's position on the subject? does the editor support his position with facts? does the editor attempt to appeal to his readers' emotions? how?

write one paragraph answering these questions.

find out how the same subject is covered on television evening news and the internet. check also to see if the subject is covered in tv news magazines such as nightline or 20/20. contrast how they use elements of sound, images, live narration, and interviews to report the news or topic. which provides more in-depth coverage? the most current news? can you detect semantics or other indirect biased approaches (generalizations, opinions, logical fallacies)?

write a second paragraph answering these questions. your two paragraphs should total at least 200 words.

Candidates Who Can Help Take Back the House : Democrats in six races in New York and New Jersey can see their party restore good sense in Congress. The New York Times Editorial Board. Oct. 20, 2018

The editorial piece was written by the editorial board of the New York Times on October 20th, 2018.

It deals with the upcoming mid-term elections in America. The editors take a very strong position against the Trump Administration as the very title of the editorial makes clear, implying that good sense has been lost in congress and, therefore, must be restored.

Their criticism about the Trump government is strong and shared by many Americans, but in they refrain from using data or some specific facts and support their position on a generic feeling based platform that may be effective only to those that agree with them.

However, the specific point of the article - about the possibilities of gaining important seats in congress - is well substantiated with strategic voting discussions and statistics.

The editor appeal to readers' emotion by implying things can be changed if they can get some of the seats and rally for democrats to vote in mass.

That subject is widely discussed in the media having different perspectives taken into account. for CNN and MSNBC mainly, the articles touches on a very critical point and their commentators strongly agree with the content. Fox news take a different approach, having some of their specialist panels classifying such editorial piece as wishful thinking without any chance to occur.

The interviews with the public shows a strong polarisation, with masses of people rallying in favour of their party, each TV channel chooses to emphasise their own perspective by painting their supporters as representatives of the democratic system whereas those that disagree with them are seen like potential threats to democracy.

It is possible to say that on discussing politics in America an unbiased position is almost impossible to be found. It is like pundits, reporters and the media in general have decided to let emotions run high in detrimental of a reasonable discussion about the facts.

Both sides make strong and baseless generalisations, adopting a Manichean perspective of "them against us".

the informational article provides an insider's view of the brown vs. board of education case; the perspective of the greenberg interview is more distant.

the greenberg interview suggests that brown vs. board of education was a very important case; the informational article does not.

the   informational article suggests that brown vs. board of education was a very important case; the greenberg interview does not.

hope this you. if not then i'm sorry but i'm glad i could at least .

it the character ahdfg gsytriw   errtywer erwqtydfgb gwty