tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2127857726799826159.post2365974628678624008..comments2023-04-17T08:23:06.509-07:00Comments on Journalism History: Supreme Court Legalizes AbortionVenisehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17316683833475702021noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2127857726799826159.post-82656282843131775612009-05-18T18:11:00.000-07:002009-05-18T18:11:00.000-07:00You wrote that the LA Times article "is succinct a...You wrote that the LA Times article "is succinct and to-the-point, reporting only the facts of the ruling" while the NY Times article "digresses from the format to shed light upon the moral disagreement between various groups [and the] reporter remains unbiased in explaining opposing views on the topic." <br /><br />I agree with you that the NYT brought a wider range of opinions. However, I don't think that makes the article unbiased. Especially when it reports on Nixon's opinion regarding abortion. Since the LAT stuck to the ruling-explaining the judge's decision and logic- I would say that article is unbiased and more informative for the public. According to your summary of the article, I don't feel like the LAT tried to impose either positive or negative feelings toward abortion. People are usually influenced by what their leaders, whether they are religious or political, say and support. <br /><br />I enjoyed reading your anaysis because you provided facts about why the court supported abortion, backed up with scientific information. Also, you remained objective on the topic. Not once did you hint whether you were for or against abortion.BrendaReyeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01022257270355007703noreply@blogger.com