in almost every aspect. The most predominate difference for all intensive purposes were attention to details (knowing the relevant aspect of the information) followed by skill (putting the knowledge in the best possible light). All of these articles did a great job of educating the reader, and seem as though they could even be interchangeable.As of this last week, these three newspapers have become my favorite sources of world news, they are all in English, which in itself would seem to indicate a common interest that could have led to the similarities. Unfortunately, I don't read any foreign language; I would have liked to examine the views of some obscure country (one without a foreign correspondent in the U.S. if there is such a thing) against the examples I used. If I had used a country that is not fond of or dependent on America, I wonder if I would have seen any fact bending. The fact of the matter is that we are so scandalous that fact bending in the foreign media is most likely not required, which is why I wish I could read just one language other than English because it is probably one of the better ways to find out what our tax money is doing overseas.In my opinion the most important issue regarding media practitioners is the "motivation" behind choice of content and of course how affects integration of the information into "clues" for the public. In understanding the global system it is extremely helpful to take a look at which region carries what stories, this information speaks volumes as to a regions affiliations, interests, alignment (global), and more importantly motivation of those who control interests. I have often wondered why there are constantly conflicts in the world that in most cases does not become news for quite a long time. Yet, (in America at least) when Israel is involved it is given priority coverage. Is this preferential coverage given only in America, or is this the case worldwide? If it is specific to t...
