Introduction
The way of reporting and discussing major political events relates to sources’ political orientation. Comparing two articles discussing the first report of the Supreme Court Commission (SCC) that opposes court expansion initiatives allows exploring this phenomenon. This paper will comparatively analyze the articles published by CNN and Fox News in terms of facts, language, visuals, and social influence.
Facts
The sources differ in terms of fact selection and presentation. In her article from a liberal-leaning media platform, De Vogue uses facts that emphasize liberals’ fervent desire to initiate the reform and disagreement with the SCC’s preliminary decision. Lee’s article posted on a conservative-leaning website utilizes other facts, including quotes from the SCC’s report that demonstrate the expansion’s hypothetical disadvantages. Unlike De Vogue, Lee does not include Democrats’ negative reactions to the decision. These dissimilarities in how the authors pick facts might stem from two factors. Firstly, Lee’s work was published two days ago, whereas De Vogue’s article has been recently updated to reflect the facts regarding the SCC’s conclusion. Secondly, the platforms’ political orientation might have influenced the selection of facts, making De Vogue depict the SCC’s disagreement with Democrats’ proposal as something that disappoints both Democrats and Republicans. The other author does not cover negative reactions to the SCC’s report.
Language/Word Choice
De Vogue uses expressive language revealing her ideological position, whereas Lee refrains from demonstrating any subjectivity. Lee relies on direct quotes from the SCC to sound more professional. He makes sure that every statement is based on someone else’s words, including reporting the finding that “the public does not favor court expansion” (Lee). Interestingly, despite failing to pay much attention to the pro-expansion point of view and the relevant arguments, Lee manages to formulate statements that divert any responsibility from him to the cited sources. Unlike Lee, De Vogue utilizes expressive language, including the statements that the reform is “desperately needed.” She also notes Democrats’ viewpoint that “the commission has no real teeth” and makes it clear that “no one is satisfied” by the SCC’s recent decision (De Vogue). Therefore, Lee’s language could be aimed at masking his personal position, whereas De Vogue opposes the moods prevalent in the SCC.
Visuals
The articles are similar when it comes to quotes from primary sources, but the uses of visual materials and hyperlinks are dissimilar. As for similarities, both Lee and De Vogue provide direct quotes extensively to capture one or both sides’ original reactions. However, Lee’s brief article does not utilize visuals that would be directly related to the topic. In contrast, De Vogue’s writing is supplemented by a four-minute interview with Joan Biskupic, CNN’s current Supreme Court analyst. Lee’s writing compensates for the lack of visual materials by inserting hyperlinks to all sources, whereas De Vogue fails to do the same. With this approach, the audience can make sure that the quotes have not been distorted.
Influences on the Public
Both stories offer one-sided perspectives on the court expansion debate, which could influence the public’s perception of the event and the resulting opinions. Lee’s failure to mention liberals’ counterarguments and reactions to the report might make the public believe that the court expansion proposal serves no clear purpose and is baseless. De Vogue’s attempt to say that the SCC’s response satisfies nobody might make the public underestimate conservatives’ opposition to the proposed initiative. Considering insufficient intersection between the sources in terms of the target audience, some consequences for public opinion are the intensification of misunderstanding between common citizens holding pro-democracy and pro-republican views. Without a deep understanding of all details and interactions, people would be more likely to support flawed straw man arguments representing the opposing political camp’s stance in the court expansion debate.
Conclusion
To sum up, there are multiple differences between the authors’ approaches to reporting the event. The dissimilarities relate to peculiar fact selection practices, the degrees of subjectivity expressed through language, and using visual means. All of this promotes the articles’ ability to influence citizens’ moods in peculiar ways.
Works Cited
De Vogue, Ariane. “Biden’s Supreme Court Commission Is Leaving Everyone Unhappy.”CNN, 2021.
Lee, Michael. “Biden Supreme Court Commission Opposes Adding Justices.”Fox News, 2021.