The 3 Stories Compared

I decided to do the news coverage on Obama's speech in China about human rights. Alright, well first of all, i was unaware that professional newspaper and news columns used "surfer" lingo in their writing. Foxnews.com used "stoking" (i.e. he was stoked) in their column and personally I find this hilarious. Fox did not really talk about censoring the speech, but more that the president was very wary of what he was speaking ABOUT. I also found this odd as Fox is more of a right-wing standing news station. It also had someone quoting that Obama's speech hardened the thoughts of China. The New York Times seemed to be a little more in depth, discussing the exact line that was thought to be offensive, as well as go into detail about how it was censored and why. This article seemed to be the most informative, whereas Los Angeles Times appeared to have more opinion. This to me was good as to get the opinion from two people in Hong Kong, but I did not feel it to be filled with enough facts. I thought that reading them all was very good because you got a sense of everything from just bland facts, opinions, and commentary in the articles. I feel it would have been very one sided had I just read one of them.