shing” by each candidate rather then discussing the issues the articles focuses on what each other says about the other. One thing that really stood out, in five of the seven articles, are discussions of George Bush’s activities were discussed prior to discussion of Al Gore. At first, I thought that maybe it was a fluke and writer was following an alphabetical order procedure to present the article. But, when I read the two articles that discussed Al Gore’s activities first it struck me that this is a very important aspect of any writing. This struck me as important because I believe that the position that the writer usually supports is the one that is discussed first and the contrast it with another view. By discussing George Bush first the ideas of Bush are imbedded in the mind and then when discussion of Al Gore is presented it is in the mind to compare it with the previous discussion. This might not necessarily be true but I do feel strongly about this claim. The reason why is, when someone wants to present a unbiased presentation they will compare and contrast the positions of both candidates throughout the whole article and not separate it into two sections.Next, words and phrases chosen to describe the candidates’ activities imply bias towards Al Gore. In almost every article I found some words or phrases that gave the impression that George Bush was doing a good job and Al Gore is struggling. Some examples of words or phrases used to describe Al Gore’s activities are: “…two-pronged endgame of wooing undecided votes”(Final Pre.,p.1) “stumping”(Presidential Candidates, p.1), “harshly critical of Bush”( Presidential Candidates, p.2), “swung hard at bush”( Presidential Candidates, p.3), “Gore hoped to gnaw at on this leg…”( Presidential Candidates, p.4), “crawling back up toward Bush”( Presidential Candidates, p...
