http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2008809150362\ (Editorial)
http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2008809100409 (News)
I found both the editorial and news articles about the mayoral debate from The Honolulu Advertiser. Both of these articles were informative about the debate, which occurred on September 9th, 2008. It was clear to me which article was a news piece, and which article was an editorial piece.
The first article that I found spoke of current University of Hawai'i civil engineering professor Panos Prevedouros. One part of the piece that blatantly stood out to me was the headline. It read Engineer Prevedouros says background can fix Honolulu, and at an instant, I knew that the majority of the article would be centered on candidate Prevedouros. The author seems to have a favoritism for Prevedouros because the article points out that Mayor Mufi Hannemann has directed some of the harshest critisism towards Prevedouros' anti-rail stance and thinks Prevedouros is only being political about it. Another reason I believe the author has a bias for Prevedouros is the way the article is set up. Following the headline, there are smaller paragraphs that contain sub-headlines. One sub-headline is titled "Infrastructure Expert", while another one is titled "Talented and Efficient". The author is most likely a supporter of Panos Prevedouros. The author does state however that "[Prevedouros'] chances of unseating Hannemann, who is backed by an 80 percent approval rating and a nearly $3 million war chest, appear slim."
Overall, I think the author tackled his job well, but the article was very biased and his few attempts to neutralize it didn't work too well.
The second article I found spoke about all three of the leading candidates for mayor, Mufi Hannemann, Ann Kobayashi and Panos Prevedouros. It provided all of the background information about the debate, and even included which news stationed broadcasted it, KGMB. Unlike the first article, I thought this article was much more neutral, with no favoritism shown to any of the candidates. The article talked about the heated discussions that the three candidates partook in. It also pointed out that many of the harsh remarks were aimed at Hannemann, with Kobayashi calling him a "bully". A big piece of the article was dedicated to the controversial rail issue. It pointed out that both Hannemann and Kobayashi support the idea of the rail while Prevedouros remains an anti-rail cohort. Kobayashi does not agree entirely with Hannemann's plan; She wants mass transit, but with rubber tires on concrete. Prevedouros' believes high occupancy toll lanes and high occupancy expressways are the future for Honolulu's transportation.
Overall, I think the author of this article informed readers about what happened during the debate very precisely and took a neutral position throughout the entire piece.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
It's great that you were able to find a neutral article on the mayoral debate, and one on Panos Prevedouros, because I don't think he gets enough positive attention like the other candidates. Good work on analyzing the articles.
I like how you talked about the titles can help you tell which one is the news article an which one is the editorial story. I agree with you that if it talks mostly about how the story is more biased, even if they attempt to talk about the opposing sides. The news article you read sounds like the one that i read and i thought it was very informative too of the three different candidates. I also thought that it was very unbiased and i agree with what you have to say about the news article. Nice blog pauli!
Nice analysis on both articles. You had interesting points about the titles and were able to effectively establish and highlight their importance and role in the editorial. It seems if used effectively and appropriately, titles and sub-heading make it easier for readers to understand and follow the thinking of the article. I also like the contrast you made note of between the two articles.
i really like your summary of both articles. I especially like your insight into the Panos Prevedouros article. I have to say that I haven't seen an article yet that's just about him and boy, was it bias like you said it was. i really like point you made about the sub headlines. hehe. definitely bias. overall all, you had good info and good contrasts. good job! :)
i think you had a well written analysis of both articles, i agree that the sub headlines give you a definite feel that the author is pro prevedouros.
Post a Comment