egorize the issue as more than a passing interest to the English people while its condensed size and narrowed scope would understandably lead one to infer that the gravity of the situation is far less than our own (London Times).Reuters is the best written of the three articles, it contains the same information (for the most part) provided in a chronological format, it is accurate, very well written (great flow) and more importantly more informative in two important areas. First it emphasizes the fact that the margin is a meager 537 votes out of 6,000,000, I find it unreal that that many people were that close together in the final tally (Reuters). I'm surprised that our media hasn't shown to be a bit more suspicious in light of the fact that it just sounds wrong to say it. Most importantly, the article has what the other two articles (chronological also) lacked; this article had a date after each event it cited, this is extremely important in this situation. I don't feel that simply listing the information in order is enough due to the fact that this whole fiasco has been about time frames and deadlines, which have been key throughout this whole process. A majority of the legal maneuverings have not been about right or wrong but about deadline extensions and trucking this load of votes here reducing the amount of time available to count them. This article is far more adherent to the "chronological" concept in the meticulous use of dates, which is the perfect flow into the final paragraph that emphasizes that the end of this has been defined in no uncertain terms and unlike the other articles vehemently defines that date at the close of the article. The article has an undertone of disapproval at the emphasis of legal phrasing and rules pertaining to a system that is suspect, rather than the importants of accuracy when acting in such an endeavor as selecting a leader.Clearly, I was surprised to find that these articles were very similar ...
