Category Archives: Work in Progress

Working on the advocacy project

We worked a lot on our advocacy project this week, both in class and on our own time. We divided up the work so that every part of the project would be covered and we would have an equal amount to contribute to the Facebook group. Adam and Albert worked on background information and history as well as ways students can get involved with donating blood, especially here on campus. Monique and I worked on the rhetorical motivation for the Facebook page. This meant trying to use ethos, logos, and pathos to grab the attention of our readers and make them want to learn more.

We did a lot of research, mostly with the red cross websites, in order to provide interesting facts and statistics that would appeal to a young audience. Everyone in the group also added pictures to the Facebook group. We felt that this would be a good way to grab people’s attention and add some entertainment to our page, rather than just having all writing.

Next, I need to write my letter of introduction for Portfolio 3.

Social Network Advocacy Project

For the social network advocacy project, I am working with Monique, Adam, and Albert. We had trouble coming up with a topic when we were trying to find things in common between the four of us. We’re all in very different areas of study, and all have different interests and involvements with Penn State, For our social network advocacy project, my group picked the topic of the importance of donating blood. This is something that can easily become a part of people’s lives, and can just as easily make a big difference.

We picked this topic because we felt it would be a good concept for a “social network” project since social networks mostly target young people. Donating blood as a young adult, and learning about its importance as a young adult, could be targeted through sites like Facebook.

We have made a Facebook group titled “Spreading Awareness About Donating Blood.” We’ve come up with a plan of action, a time schedule, and divided the work between the four of us. Over the next few weeks, we will each post a few things on the Facebook group and try to get people to show interest in the topic. These posts will include background information, pictures, and ways to get involved.

Grammar Portfolio 2

While revising my papers, I realized one of my most common grammatical errors was using a comma instead of a semi-colon. I made this mistake in both papers. Semicolons are used to link two independent clauses to connect ideas that are similar or are related. You can connect two independent clauses that are connected by conjunctive adverbs or transitional phrases. You can also use a semicolon between items in a list if those items contain commas. One of my biggest mistakes was using a comma instead of a semicolon when the word “however” was present. “However” is actually a conjunctive adverb and therefore signals the use of a semicolon to link the independent clauses.

“Letter of Introduction” Portfolio 2

Letter of Introduction for Portfolio 2

Portfolio 2 includes papers 3 and 4, a rebuttal paper and a policy paper. Paper 3 is a rebuttal against a specific argument I found in an article online. I chose to rebut Dr. Allan Carlson’s article that speaks against gay marriage. Carlson’s argument, and therefore my rebuttal, focused mostly on the family part of same sex marriage, and his claim that gay or lesbian parents are not equivalent to straight parents. I focused my argument on this by using outside sources and research to show that children raised in same-sex families are just as healthy and successful as those raised in heterosexual households. My revisions mostly involved organizing the progression of the paper and making sure parts weren’t unnecessary or in the wrong spot. I also worked on my conclusion and tried to clearly state the argument I was rebutting.

Paper 4 is a policy paper. I chose to write about the possibility of changing the age for purchasing cigarettes to twenty-one, similarly to the policy for drinking and purchasing alcohol. For this paper, I worked with many outside sources to provide facts and real information that could shed light on the reality of cigarettes. I focused my paper on the effects of cigarettes on youth specifically, and compared the risks of smoking to the risks of drinking to support my statements. Revisions for this paper involved adding subtitles, dividing the paper into clearer sections, and making sure to focus my writing on the youth affected by smoking. I also had a few grammar corrections, mostly with semicolons getting mixed up with commas.

Policy Paper with revisions

 

Paper 4: Policy Paper

Abstract

With the health risks of smoking still prevalent today, the government’s involvement in policies against smoking, especially among youth, is particularly important. A huge population in America is addicted to cigarettes, and over 90% became addicted as teenagers. A recent decrease from one out of three to one out of five high schoolers smoking seemed like a step in the right direction; however this decrease is now at a stall and rates are not moving (Steinberg, 2011). A policy to further raise the minimum age to buy cigarettes would not only lessen the amount of cigarettes purchased, but also prevent addictions at a young age.

Introduction

Even though information about the dangers and health risks of smoking have become more than available in today’s society, its prevalence is still shocking, especially among young people. Information has been collected and compiled over time; it’s no secret now that smoking is bad. In fact, everyone seems to have this mutual understanding today, even those that still smoke. The government has taken steps to reduce the prevalence; however you can still see smoking amongst youth and college-aged students anywhere you go.

The developments in science, the research conducted, and the results from studies around the world have made it clear: smoking causes death. In fact, one in every five deaths is related to the adverse health effects from cigarette smoking. It has been shown that more deaths each year are caused by tobacco use than by HIV, illegal drugs, car injuries, suicides, and murders combined. Research has also made another thing clear: smoking among teenagers is the root of the problem.

Health Risks

Smoking causes 90% of lung cancer deaths in men and 80% in women, as well as doubling the risk of coronary heart disease, which is the leading cause of death in the United States (Center for Disease Control and Prevention,2013). These statistics are clear-cut and undeniable, yet smoking still is common. We cannot use the excuse of this information not being exposed to the public, for it has become almost common knowledge of how dangerous smoking is yet the habit is still more than popular. The health risks for young people are even more significant. Short-term risks may include respiratory and non-respiratory consequences, while also interfering with physical fitness. Smoking increases heart rate and blood pressure. Shortness of breath is a common side effect in smoking teenagers and continues to progress as time goes on. The moment you start smoking, the damage begins. This is why the younger a person is when they start smoking, the more detrimental the consequences are and the more serious the health risks become.

Addiction in Teens  

Another reason age is important is because starting to smoke at a younger age increases your chances of becoming addicted to the nicotine in cigarettes. By twenty-one, not eighteen, the brain is developed in a sense of its systems being much harder to change. This is good for those who have not yet started smoking, but bad for those who have already started, similarly to drinking and other drugs. Raising the legal age may not guarantee no illegal uses, but it will help make cigarettes less available to younger kids. Many eighteen year olds are still in high school, which brings cigarettes into that setting and therefore to even younger teenagers. Cigarettes are still today easily obtainable and just as easily addictive, especially among those who pick up the habit at such a young age. Making the legal age twenty-one will expand the protection from cigarettes to younger teenagers and reduce the number of teenagers that can try it.

Target Marketing

While these facts may seem like a serious problem for us, for marketing companies they are the key to success. Marketing companies use the excuse that smoking, like drinking, is a right, or even a benefit. They say “old enough to fight and vote, old enough to drink and smoke.” Young adults and teenagers are the key to their success, and they don’t deny it. When the American Medical Association first suggested making the legal purchasing age of tobacco twenty-one, an industry strategist replied, “Raising the legal minimum age for cigarette purchase to twenty-one could gut our key young adult market where we sell about twenty-five billion cigarettes and enjoy a seventy percent market share” (An Executive Summary, 2002). The tobacco industry knows they can reach out and gain their life-long customers at a young age. Advertisements and media have been studied and show a clear appeal to a younger audience. Movies and television shows put smoking and drinking in a more positive light while grasping the attention of teenagers.

When the smoking industry first started targeting a younger audience, they did so non-discreetly, such as with cartoons and animations. Now that there is a huge push for resistance of youth smoking, the companies have adjusted their methods and often deny that they target any certain age range or group of people. Some have even advertised against youth smoking, but researchers and health advocates question how appropriate their messages really are.

Government Changes

The government has been involved in such campaigns and changes have been made. Taxes have been raised, smoking bans have been placed in public places and schools. College campuses are even beginning to set bans on smoking. Education programs around the country have informed the young and the old about these risks, and cigarette packs even display the warnings and numbers. The media has caught on and has become involved in anti-smoking campaigns that catch everyone’s attention, yet no huge drop is being seen. Age is one factor that can be further targeted when creating policies to lessen smoking in the United States. In fact, this should have been a main target all along, as an estimated nine out of ten smokers started smoking before the age of eighteen.

The cost of cigarettes has continued to rise, yet young people are still the ones trying them the most. Smoking education programs are everywhere, the media has covered every angle of smoking, yet teens still pick up the habit. The younger someone starts, the more likely they are to become addicted and make it a life-long habit. Smoking is the leading cause of death. Because the majority of these adults start smoking as teenagers, government programs or policies preventing this age range from smoking is what can create a noticeable difference.

Smoking and Alcohol

A common question, especially with today’s research, is alcohol and how it is related to cigarettes. Could cigarettes be as harmful and hazardous as alcohol? Alcohol has perhaps always been considered a “bigger deal” in terms of young people; however smoking has now been shown to be just as serious if not more. Before 1984, the drinking age in the United States was eighteen, like smoking is today. The national minimum drinking age act was passed in 1984 by the United States Congress, stating that all states would be required to legislate the age of twenty-one years as a minimum for purchasing and possessing alcoholic beverages. This act was backed by an organization called “Mothers Against Drunk Driving.” Based on a ten-year estimate, there were 443,000 deaths per year due to cigarette smoking, and 11,773 deaths caused by drunk driving. Yet, the drinking age was increased while the smoking age still remains eighteen. If the statistics show that smoking is more dangerous than alcohol, why is the age to purchase cigarettes still younger than that to buy alcohol? Creating a policy to raise the age required for purchasing cigarettes would lessen the amount of young people who try cigarettes in the first place, and have benefits similar to those from the policy that lowered the drinking age.

Conclusion

Although many policies have been made in hopes of reducing the overall popularity of smoking, more age-directed changes would have a stronger impact. The goal of this policy is to prevent teenagers from having such easy access to cigarettes, which will hopefully in turn reduce the popularity of smoking in the United States. A policy similar to the “national minimum drinking age act” that would change the age for purchasing tobacco to twenty-one would lessen the prevalence of smoking in teenagers. Raising the age and therefore reducing the amount of smokers in the long run will improve the overall health and quality of life of Americans.

Works Cited Page

 

 

“Health Effects of Cigarette Smoking.” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (    2013): npage. Print. <http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/index.htm>.

 

“The Case for Taking Tobacco to Age 21.” Preventing Tobacco Addiction Foundation. Horizons Companies, 2002. Web. Web. 13 Apr. 2013. <http://www.tobacco21.org/executive/>.

 

Steinberg, Laurence. “Raise age to buy cigarettes to 21.” CNN Opinion 18 04 2011, n         .   pag. Web. 13 Apr. 2013.

Rebuttal with revisions

Dr. Carlson’s Article:

http://www.britannica.com/blogs/2008/06/the-case-against-same-sex-marriage-by-dr-allan-carlson/

 

As of March 2013, eleven countries have allowed for the legalization of same-sex, also known as equal, marriage. As of January 2013, nine states have legalized same-sex marriage. The recognition of the rights of same-sex marriage has become a political, religious, and social issue regarding human rights and civil rights. This ongoing question has become a popular media debate and target for political parties, religious advocates, and various groups of people around the world.

Dr. Allan Carlson posted an article revealing his position against same-sex marriage, posing the question of “why has every healthy human society, through thousands of examples and years, restricted the special status of marriage to heterosexual pairs” (Britannica, 2008). Carlson goes on to answer this question with his personal beliefs and research to develop his case against same sex marriage. The focus of his article is the idea of children in families of same-sex couples, rather than the controversy of the couples themselves. Carlson does not state that he is specifically against same-sex marriage; he simply brings forward the idea that “the once obvious answer is that life is naturally heterosexual” (Britannica, 2008).  The world has and will continue to change in many ways, and the “once obvious answer” must be adjusted accordingly. While Carlson does have the children in mind, his argument is outdated and does not consider the true qualities one might look for in good parents.

One of the main arguments Carlson addresses is the topic of children of same-sex marriage. It is intelligent of him to bring up this argument as the idea of having children is almost always correlated with a mother-father relationship. Carlson, however, brings up points that can be taken and twisted from many perspectives. He addresses the research that claims that children predictably do best in a family with their two natural parents. This is not just an issue of same-sex marriage, though, as adoption is growing in popularity and success across the spectrum, whether with two fathers, two mothers, or one of each. This can be thought of in a more general way, however, that complicates Carlson’s argument. Studies may in fact show that children do better with their natural parents, but studies also now show that children benefit from being raised by two parents in a legally recognized union, therefore married. Doesn’t this mean a married gay couple would be better at parenting than a non-married gay couple? Divorce rates of heterosexual couples are higher than ever. If we really are looking at this topic with the children in mind, we should acknowledge that two married parents is always better than divorced parents, no matter the gender.

Carlson claims that children raised in families with natural parents will be “healthier, happier, and better adjusted emotionally and will better succeed in school than when living in any other configuration” (Carlson, 2008). Recent studies, however, show that children being raised by same-sex parents have nearly the same educational achievement as those raised by a married couple of a mother and father. Studies have shown that children of unmarried gay couples have lower grade-repetition rates than children raised by unmarried men and women and single parents (Gorlick, 2010). A recent seventeen-year study done by the American Academy of Pediatrics has shown results concluding that children raised by lesbian parents do better academically and show more confidence and few behavioral problems than their peers (Chrisler, 2010).   Family income, involvement, and educational choices are the most significant indicators of a child’s educational success, not the gender of the parents.

The article addresses the common fear of those against gay marriage that if same-sex marriage is legalized, same-sex married couples will be equally considered in adoptions of children. This should not even be considered a “fear,” since gay people have the same qualities anyone would look for in a good parent, nothing exclusive to straight people. They are fully functioning members of society and have the same morals and parenting skills as anyone else would. The idea is however often used as a reason in the case against same-sex marriage. There are no specific “qualifications” for being a parent; however one might consider loving, capable, responsible, and supportive to be important qualities; none of which vary based on gender preferences. What one might consider skills necessary for good parenting are in no way exclusive to straight men and women. Today, there are 123,000 orphans in the United States in the foster home system (Global Economist, 2012). These children could more easily find a stable home if gay and lesbian couples could more easily adopt. This could happen if they are able to be legally married. If gay and lesbian couples are allowed to marry, they are more likely to wish to start a family and many will look into adoption, which could potentially reduce this number.

Carlson’s argument isn’t specifically against same-sex marriage as a whole, but more of a discussion using the idea of family and children as a “reason” against it. If this is his strongest reason against same-sex marriage, Carlson doesn’t build himself much of a case seeing as it has been proved that same-sex couples are just as good of parents as heterosexual couples. They’re even better parents when married, which actually turns Carlson’s own argument against him.

 

Policy Paper

 

Abstract

With the health risks of smoking still prevalent today, the government’s involvement in policies against smoking, especially among youth, is particularly important. A decrease from one out of three to one out of five high schoolers smoking seemed like a step in the right direction, however this decrease is now at a stall and rates are not moving. A policy to further raise the minimum age to buy cigarettes would not only lessen the amount of cigarettes purchased, but also prevent addictions at a young age.

Even though information about the dangers and health risks of smoking have become more than available in today’s society, its prevalence is still shocking, especially among young people. Information has been collected and compiled over time; it’s no secret now that smoking is bad. In fact, everyone seems to have this mutual understanding today, even those that still smoke. The government has taken steps to reduce the prevalence, however you can still see smoking amongst youth and college-aged students anywhere you go.

The developments in science, the research conducted, and the results from studies around the world have made it clear: smoking causes death. In fact, one in every five deaths is related to the adverse health effects from cigarette smoking. It has been shown that more deaths each year are caused by tobacco use than by HIV, illegal drugs, car injuries, suicides, and murders combined. Smoking causes 90% of lung cancer deaths in men and 80% in women, as well as doubling the risk of coronary heart disease, which is the leading cause of death in the United States. These statistics are clear-cut and undeniable, yet smoking still is common. We cannot use the excuse of this information not being spread to the public, for it has become almost common knowledge of how dangerous smoking is. Education programs around the country have informed the young and the old about these risks, and cigarette packs even display the warnings and numbers. The media has caught on and has become involved in anti-smoking campaigns that catch everyone’s attention, yet no huge drop is being seen.

The government has been involved in such campaigns and changes have been made. Taxes have been raised, smoking bans have been placed in public places and schools. College campuses are even beginning to set bans on smoking. Age is one factor that can be further targeted when creating policies to lessen smoking in the United States. In fact, this should have been a main target all along, as an estimated nine out of ten smokers started smoking before the age of eighteen. The cost of cigarettes has continued to rise, yet young people are the ones trying them the most. Smoking education programs are everywhere, the media has covered every angle of smoking, yet teens still pick up the habit. The younger someone starts, the more likely they are to become addicted and make it a life-long habit. Smoking is the leading cause of death. Because the majority of these adults start smoking as teenagers, preventing this age range from smoking is what can create a noticeable difference.

A common question, especially with today’s research, is alcohol and how it is related to cigarettes. Could cigarettes be as harmful and hazardous as alcohol? Alcohol has perhaps always been considered a “bigger deal” in terms of young people, however smoking has now been shown to be just as serious if not more. Before 1984, the drinking age in the United States was eighteen, like smoking is today. The national minimum drinking age act was passed in 1984 by the United States Congress, stating that all states would be required to legislate the age of twenty-one years as a minimum for purchasing and possessing alcoholic beverages. This act was backed by an organization called “Mothers Against Drunk Driving.” Based on a ten-year estimate, there were 443,000 deaths per year due to cigarette smoking, and 11,773 deaths caused by drunk driving. Yet, the drinking age was increased while the smoking age still remains eighteen.

If the statistics show that smoking is more dangerous than alcohol, why is the age to purchase cigarettes still younger than that to buy alcohol? Creating a policy to raise the age required for purchasing cigarettes would lessen the amount of young people who try cigarettes in the first place, and have benefits similar to those from the policy that lowered the drinking age.

Another reason age is important is because starting to smoke at a younger age increases your chances of becoming addicted to the nicotine in cigarettes. By twenty-one, not eighteen, the brain is developed in a sense of its systems being much harder to change. This is good for those who have not yet started smoking, but bad for those who have already started, similarly to drinking and other drugs. Raising the legal age may not guarantee no illegal uses, but it will help make cigarettes less available to younger kids. Many eighteen year olds are still in high school, which brings cigarettes into that setting and therefore to even younger teenagers.

Although many policies have been made in hopes of reducing the overall popularity of smoking, more age-directed changes would have a stronger impact. A policy similar to the “national minimum drinking age act” that would change the age for purchasing tobacco to twenty-one would lessen the prevalence of smoking in teenagers.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/04/18/steinberg.smoking.teens/index.html

 

http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/health_effects/effects_cig_smoking/

Paper 3 Draft

http://www.britannica.com/blogs/2008/06/the-case-against-same-sex-marriage-by-dr-allan-carlson/

 

Other sources:

http://news.stanford.edu/news/2010/august/gay-study-083010.html

As of March 2013, eleven countries have allowed for the legalization of same-sex, also known as equal, marriage. As of January 2013, nine states have legalized same-sex marriage. The recognition of the rights of same-sex marriage has become a political, religious, and social issue regarding human rights and civil rights. This ongoing question has become a popular media debate and target for political parties, religious advocates, and various groups of people around the world.

Dr. Allan Carlson posted an article revealing his position against same-sex marriage, posing the question of “why has every healthy human society, through thousands of examples and years, restricted the special status of marriage to heterosexual pairs?” Carlson goes on to answer this question with his personal beliefs and research to develop his case against same sex marriage. The focus of his article is the idea of children in families of same-sex couples, rather than the controversy of the couples themselves.

One of the main arguments Carlson addresses is the topic of children of same-sex marriage. It is intelligent of him to bring up this argument as the idea of having children is almost always correlated with a mother-father relationship. Carlson, however, brings up points that can be taken and twisted from many perspectives. He addresses the research that claims that children predictably do best in a family with their two natural parents. This is not just an issue of same-sex marriage, though, as adoption is growing in popularity and success across the spectrum, whether with two fathers, two mothers, or one of each. This can be thought of in a more general way, however, that complicates Carlson’s argument. Studies may in fact show that children do better with their natural parents, but studies also now show that children benefit from being raised by two parents in a legally recognized union, therefore married. Doesn’t this mean a married gay couple would be better at parenting than a non-married gay couple? Studies have shown that children of unmarried gay couples have lower grade-repetition rates than children raised by unmarried men and women and single parents (Gorlick, 2010).

Carlson claims that children raised in families with natural parents will be “healthier, happier, and better adjusted emotionally and will better succeed in school than when living in any other configuration” (Carlson, 2008). Recent studies, however, show that children being raised by same-sex parents have nearly the same educational achievement as those raised by a married couple of a mother and father. Family income, involvement, and educational choices are the most significant indicators of a child’s educational success, not the gender of the parents.

The article addresses the common fear of those against gay marriage that if same-sex marriage is legalized, same-sex married couples will be equally considered in adoptions of children. This should not even be considered a “fear,” since gay people have the same qualities anyone would look for in a good parent, nothing exclusive to straight people. They are fully functioning members of society and have the same morals and parenting skills as anyone else would. The idea is however often used as a reason in the case against same-sex marriage.

Carlson’s argument isn’t specifically against same-sex marriage as a whole, but more of a discussion using the idea of family and children as a “reason” against it. If this is his strongest reason against same-sex marriage, Carlson doesn’t build himself much of a case seeing as it has been proved that same-sex couples are just as good of parents as heterosexual couples. They’re even better parents when married, which actually turns Carlson’s own argument against him.

Revisions

Rhetorical Analysis Paper:

For revisions for my rhetorical analysis paper about the snickers commercial, I will be working on :

  • Thesis: Go right into idea of “you’re not you when you’re hungry” rather than dragging out useless paragraph.
  • My introduction: making a more clear thesis, focusing the introduction more on the snickers commercial rather than just generalizing about advertisements.
  • Organization: the ordering of the paper, fixing random or unnecessary paragraphs.
  • Conclusion: add more that brings it all together

News Article Paper:

For revisions of the news article paper, I will work on:

  • Introduction: Needs a clear thesis
  • Body: Organization: work on where points should be made, if at all.
  • Talk about pathos, ethos, and logos of the advertisements and specifically of the characters/actors used (Joe Pesci).
  • In general, make it more clear about what exactly the slants of the two articles were, the actual positions taken rather than just describing how they are different
  • Conclusion: Name the slanted sides

Draft 2: News Articles

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/12/world/europe/pope-benedict-xvi-says-he-will-retire.html?hp&_r=0

 

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/02/11/what-s-next-for-pope-benedict.html

 

When media coverage of a recent event is released to the public, speculation often arises about the neutrality and preciseness of the statements made. Media bias is a growing feature of the mass media world and can be seen in news articles, television programs, and broadcasting specials around the world. From one newspaper to the next, readers and critics can often pick out articles that take a slanted approach in covering the topic at hand.

With a story as demanding as the resignation of the pope, every major and minor newspaper and broadcasting network releases not one, but several stories covering every inch of who, what, when, where, and why. The New York Times released an article titled “Pope Benedict XVI Says He Will Resign.” This seems basic, a seemingly neutral title just stating the facts. The article actually goes on to talk not only about the “shocking” resignation, but also the scandals of his time and his unfortunate “aging.” Another mass media production, Newsweek, released and article titled “The Perks of Being an Ex-Pope.” This article takes a different spin on the pope’s decision and focuses on what’s next for him.

While both stories cover the same facts and offer the pope’s announcement, they present his legacy and decision in very different lights. How serious should an article about the pope “quitting” really be? With the pope’s announcement being translated into several languages and dispersed around the world, the media coverage was nothing less than rapid and widespread. This means the writers, photographers, and broadcasters of the world pounced on the story, said what they had to say, and rushed to get their piece out to the public. The New York Times article “Pope Benedict XVI Says He Will Resign” does not hesitate to say that Benedict spent much of his papacy “in the shadow of his beloved predecessor.” This isn’t the most praising way to start an article about a pope stepping down.

The next paragraph goes right into the abuse scandals during the pope’s time, and the following starts out with a very blunt “In recent months, Benedict had been showing signs of age.”  The writer goes on to say the pope was a “weak manager” of the scandals at hand and “provoked global outrage” with a past decision regarding the excommunication of four bishops in 2009. The word choices of this article, such as “weak” and “outrage” create a somewhat disapproving tone. Even on top of the word choice, what the writer picked to focus on shows a slant in their perspective of Pope Benedict’s announcement of resignation. The author chooses to focus and emphasize the perhaps not so bright moments of the pope’s term, rather than addressing his legacy and what will happen next.

On the other hand, the Newsweek article offers a much more casual, forward-thinking version of what it means for the pope to be resigning. The article itself is even called “The Perks of Being an Ex-Pope.” The writer’s word choice develops a casual tone that’s neither praising nor questioning the pope’s legacy and decision to step down. The writer calls it nothing more than an “early exit” and goes on to add a bit of humor, whether appropriate or not, to talk about how he’s avoiding the “dreaded papal death watch.”

Both articles present the facts that the public needs to hear: the official announcement the pope made, his general reasons for resigning, and when his stepping down will be effective. They also both added the comment of how a pope hasn’t resigned in six-hundred years. This could be taken as a jab at how popes shouldn’t “step down,” or as nothing more than an interesting fact to add something to the article. The New York Times and Newsweek present their information in distinct ways, using tone, word choice, and different focuses to portray their desired message. They can both be seen as slanted and perhaps even bias towards or against the pope’s decision.