how are different viewpoints expressed on the same subject

the daily mail and Washington post have very different political viewpoints. depending on what you believe in, you probably would read one over the other. I personally don’t agree with a lot of the daily mails beliefs and viewpoints. this leads me to not take their articles and journals as seriously. piers morgans tone in the article is almost childish, which takes away from his creditability for me. it is so obvious that he is biased with his hand-picked information. for example the tweet he got from one of the girls years ago when she talks about death. he picked that tweet from a handful of others which are probably much nicer. i think he would’ve mentioned if all of her tweets were this aggressive, but he didn’t so I assume this isn’t something she tweets about often and that she doesn’t tweet those sorts of things anymore.

Washington post is also seen as handpicking information in a biased attempt to make the home secretary and the government look, bad guys. this is an issue that shouldn’t have sides, I would much rather read an unbiased report on the subject for a better understanding, and so that I can form my own opinion.

we can see how media is represented in home fire, we find the headlines and articles ridiculous because we know the people they are talking about well. the exaggeration and misinformation are identifiable to us because we know the characters personally. but without personal input to a story, an article can really shape our thinking