ound.The contrasting elements in both of the articles are more apparent. The Plain Dealer article focuses on the fact that it is possible for Elian to seek asylum. The sources used were mostly of those who were directly involved with the case and who had some type of bearing on the outcome. The Weekly Standard article relied on the public as the main source of information, the ones who have limited or no bearing on the outcome. One of the most outstanding elements that was mentioned in the Weekly Standard article and not in the Plain Dealer is the issue of ethnicity. Carlson makes the point that the division in Miami falls along the lines of ethnicity. The difference in attitudes depends on whether the person is black or Cuban. The Plain Dealer article only skirts the differences in the views of the people. The substantial importance lies within the bounds of the legality of Elian’s appeal for asylum. There are no clues given regarding the outcome of the case. It is only stated that the case will be heard and the projected time that the courts will arrive at a decision will be weeks to months.Another element that the Plain dealer article included that the Weekly standard article did not was the circumstances that lead to the case. The article briefly described the how Elian got to the United States and the role his father plays in whether the boy will stay in Miami or not.This leads into the element that should be deemed more important in covering this news issue. The facts and circumstances add to the value of the article. In the instance of these two pieces, the Plain Dealer was more effective in presenting the element of circumstance. It did not leave as many questions in the mind of the reader as the Weekly Standard article did. The Weekly Standard gave the reason why the protest took place but it eliminated the circumstances that lead to that reason. The Plain Dealer stuck closer to the chronology of the events tha...
