https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9GIjWb6Zw-k https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UkfOPo_XIpA the two vides is the ukraine army fighting agenst the russians reblies and one of them is a week old and the other is 2 days old and the point is that the two sids are at a stand still
1: Ones about Chernobyl While one is about the Malaysia flight. They are different because they are two different stories 2: I'm not sure what influenced what was told or how it was told
1. They show the different thoughts and how the countries are thinking differently than each other. Both are biased in their opinion. 2. Reporters and informants can put their own little spin on the facts and data. They can also leave out or change little pieces of information.
Story 1: www.cnn.com/2014/01/28/world/europe/ukraine-protests-explainer/ Story 2: https://www.rt.com/usa/312682-drone-program-expansion-lethal/ 1. The differences between the two stories are that Story 1 mainly provides background regarding the crisis in the Ukraine. They provide many facts and don't say their opinion regarding the issue. However, while Story 2 also provides a lot of background about how the US is going to increase their drone strikes, they also show a very strong opinion in the article. The author states many negative facts about the US drone strikes and they don't say the positive effects they have caused. 2. The sources of information for these stories have influenced what is told and how it is told because while the US Story doesn't have a strong opinion in it, the sources of information could have affected their opinion on the issue. Also, for Story 2, the sources may have been biased and had a strong opinion on the crisis. This would then affect the type of information that they received and it may have caused the article to appear to have a strong, biased opinion. For example, if for Story 2 they got all of their information from Russian sources, they may have a strong Russian opinion in the article.
I don't think that the stories should be biased. They should've both been articles that state the facts about Ukraine and the struggles they are going through.
My first source talked about how Ukraine is in a lot of trouble, and my second source almost says the same thing except in a less criticizing way. Russia is making it sound like Ukraine is going to choose them over the EU. The first article, which was written by the US is telling the whole story behind Ukraine's problem while Russia is telling more of their side of the story.
These articles seem to have a similar viewpoint as my articles. In my US and EU article, the article focuses more on the background of the crisis while the Russian article seems to tell more about their side of the story.
It shows how both countries are trying to win the fight. The first story was siding with the EU and Ukraine while the second story was sided with Russia.
1) One of the stories is about Ukraine being stuck in the middle of Russia and the EU. The second one is about Ukraine and their rising ultilty prices. THe difference in sources, and the time difference could account for the differences in the stories. 2) The Russian source might be bias becasue they want to point out what the people are unhappy about so Ukraine will join them. The European source wants to highlight what they are doing in trying to get Ukraine to join them.
The time difference could be a big changer of the events going on. Both sides are biased because they both want Ukraine to be with them, not the other.
1) one of the stories is about Ukraine being stuck in the middle of Russia and the EU. The second one is about Ukraine and their rising utility prices. The difference in sources and the time difference could account for these differences. 2) The Russian source might be biased because they want to point out what the people are unhappy about so Ukraine will join them. The European source wants to highlight what they are doing in trying to get Ukraine to join them.
1. Russia is claiming that they had no connections to the missile that shot the plane down and US claimed that is was a Russian made missile, but that the airline should've been more aware of there surroundings. 2. rt.com is the writer of the article that is saying the missile was not Russian and this website is a Russian made which would make them biased and would want Russia to look good. CNN.com is the writer of the article that claims that the missile was Russian and that the airline should've been more aware as to what was going on, and they weren't very biased.
1.This article is missing the mention of unfairity of the Russian country. 2. This article is very reliable. 1. Russia has gotten heavy weapons delivered in Eastern Eukraine. the other side- Russia says there troops have taken no part in conflict.Ukraine vs. Russia 2. The Ukraine article is biased towards itself, and vise versa for the Russian article.
I enjoy your writing style and really appreciate the work that you did to publish this piece. It has opened my eyes to the way that the Ukraine conflict effects us Americans in our land. Another thing that I would like to commend you on is the neatness that your post is. Finally I would like to say that you have improved as a novelist this past year in the geography class. I look forward to seeing what you will do next you crazy dog.
1.One article is about gas and how Ukraine tuned off Russia's gas. The second one is how the people want to limit the president's power and take it way. That is why there is riots and protests. 2. The NY times might influence the side of Ukraine because we want Ukraine to be a independent country.
my first source talks about pro Russian people post hateful and extreme threatening comments to people who are government officials. Many think these in a sense protesters posting these comments might take action and try to harm one of the government workers
My first source talks about pro EU/US because people talk about how Russia is hurting people and ruining their lives. They are right to do that because Russia shot a missile and it brought down a Ukrainian plane and killed many civilians.
My source talked about how Vladmir Putin is trying to set up a meeting with leaders from France, Ukraine, and Germany to settle the violence in eastern Ukraine. They plan to "solve" the violence by trying to reach an agreement that the Eu and Russia and Ukraine all agree on. It seems that it will help stop violence, but it might also create new violence.
I agree with you on how it could end violence and start violence because the countries both want Ukraine and there is some serious tension between the E.U. and Russia.
I agree with you on how it could end violence and start violence because the countries both want Ukraine and there is some serious tension between the E.U. and Russia.
1. The E.U. is saying that the protests in Ukraine started when the president backed of his deal with the E.U. and made a deal with Russia so they are saying that the reason that it started was because of Russia and how they were influencing Ukraine even though the E.U. think they'll hurt them. On. Russia's side they are sending humanitaian convoys into Ukraine, and that the E.U. was claiming how they were shipping firearms into Ukraine, but it turns out they weren't so now Russia is saying that the E.U. is trying to start conflict between Ukraine and Russia and that maybe the E.U. was the cause of all the violence.
2.They might have influenced the stories because they want the readers to believe them and not the other people or countries that are going to tell the story a different way.
The different authors and different time of reports could account for one article explaining how Ukrainians are protesting high utility bills and the other discussing the issue of whether Ukraine should go with Russia or Europe. The European source is leaning towards what Europe is trying to do to get Ukraine to join them. The Russian source could be biased because they want to show that the people are upset so Ukraine will likely join them.
The first story shows an example of the situation and the second shows the effect. The sources just depend on how the story is told because it matters who the writers got the story from.
My source is about the agreement hoping to be made with Ukraine, Russia, France and Germany. This agreement would give Ukraine more control over its boarders. The hope is that the peace deal will end the conflict in Ukraine
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9GIjWb6Zw-k
ReplyDeletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UkfOPo_XIpA
the two vides is the ukraine army fighting agenst the russians reblies and one of them is a week old and the other is 2 days old and the point is that the two sids are at a stand still
This is true cause in the video they were not rushing in they were just standing there ground
Delete1: Ones about Chernobyl While one is about the Malaysia flight. They are different because they are two different stories
ReplyDelete2: I'm not sure what influenced what was told or how it was told
1. They show the different thoughts and how the countries are thinking differently than each other. Both are biased in their opinion.
ReplyDelete2. Reporters and informants can put their own little spin on the facts and data. They can also leave out or change little pieces of information.
i agree with what you are saying but if you included the specific countries.
DeleteStory 1: www.cnn.com/2014/01/28/world/europe/ukraine-protests-explainer/
ReplyDeleteStory 2: https://www.rt.com/usa/312682-drone-program-expansion-lethal/
1. The differences between the two stories are that Story 1 mainly provides background regarding the crisis in the Ukraine. They provide many facts and don't say their opinion regarding the issue. However, while Story 2 also provides a lot of background about how the US is going to increase their drone strikes, they also show a very strong opinion in the article. The author states many negative facts about the US drone strikes and they don't say the positive effects they have caused.
2. The sources of information for these stories have influenced what is told and how it is told because while the US Story doesn't have a strong opinion in it, the sources of information could have affected their opinion on the issue. Also, for Story 2, the sources may have been biased and had a strong opinion on the crisis. This would then affect the type of information that they received and it may have caused the article to appear to have a strong, biased opinion. For example, if for Story 2 they got all of their information from Russian sources, they may have a strong Russian opinion in the article.
I don't think that the stories should be biased. They should've both been articles that state the facts about Ukraine and the struggles they are going through.
DeleteMy first source talked about how Ukraine is in a lot of trouble, and my second source almost says the same thing except in a less criticizing way. Russia is making it sound like Ukraine is going to choose them over the EU. The first article, which was written by the US is telling the whole story behind Ukraine's problem while Russia is telling more of their side of the story.
ReplyDeleteThese articles seem to have a similar viewpoint as my articles. In my US and EU article, the article focuses more on the background of the crisis while the Russian article seems to tell more about their side of the story.
DeleteIt shows how both countries are trying to win the fight. The first story was siding with the EU and Ukraine while the second story was sided with Russia.
ReplyDelete1) One of the stories is about Ukraine being stuck in the middle of Russia and the EU. The second one is about Ukraine and their rising ultilty prices. THe difference in sources, and the time difference could account for the differences in the stories.
ReplyDelete2) The Russian source might be bias becasue they want to point out what the people are unhappy about so Ukraine will join them. The European source wants to highlight what they are doing in trying to get Ukraine to join them.
The time difference could be a big changer of the events going on. Both sides are biased because they both want Ukraine to be with them, not the other.
Delete1) one of the stories is about Ukraine being stuck in the middle of Russia and the EU. The second one is about Ukraine and their rising utility prices. The difference in sources and the time difference could account for these differences.
ReplyDelete2) The Russian source might be biased because they want to point out what the people are unhappy about so Ukraine will join them. The European source wants to highlight what they are doing in trying to get Ukraine to join them.
I like how your points for the Russians source being biased. I also like the topics of the stories.
Delete1. Russia is claiming that they had no connections to the missile that shot the plane down and US claimed that is was a Russian made missile, but that the airline should've been more aware of there surroundings.
ReplyDelete2. rt.com is the writer of the article that is saying the missile was not Russian and this website is a Russian made which would make them biased and would want Russia to look good. CNN.com is the writer of the article that claims that the missile was Russian and that the airline should've been more aware as to what was going on, and they weren't very biased.
I like the sophisticated language used. Very good points.
DeleteThis is something special because it highlights the biasisasts that can be made in articles such as the one you have reported on.
Delete1.This article is missing the mention of unfairity of the Russian country.
ReplyDelete2. This article is very reliable.
1. Russia has gotten heavy weapons delivered in Eastern Eukraine.
the other side- Russia says there troops have taken no part in conflict.Ukraine vs. Russia
2. The Ukraine article is biased towards itself, and vise versa for the Russian article.
Very informative.
DeleteI enjoy your writing style and really appreciate the work that you did to publish this piece. It has opened my eyes to the way that the Ukraine conflict effects us Americans in our land. Another thing that I would like to commend you on is the neatness that your post is. Finally I would like to say that you have improved as a novelist this past year in the geography class. I look forward to seeing what you will do next you crazy dog.
Delete1.One article is about gas and how Ukraine tuned off Russia's gas. The second one is how the people want to limit the president's power and take it way. That is why there is riots and protests.
ReplyDelete2. The NY times might influence the side of Ukraine because we want Ukraine to be a independent country.
Article 1: They talk about how the people rioted and how they all were fighting. I could influence people to fight more which is bad.
ReplyDeleteArticle 2:
It shows how people were trying to fight and win. And how much trouble the Ukraine is in.
my first source talks about pro Russian people post hateful and extreme threatening comments to people who are government officials. Many think these in a sense protesters posting these comments might take action and try to harm one of the government workers
ReplyDeleteinteresting
DeleteMy first source talks about pro EU/US because people talk about how Russia is hurting people and ruining their lives. They are right to do that because Russia shot a missile and it brought down a Ukrainian plane and killed many civilians.
ReplyDeleteI agree that Russia is being hostile and we need to take action
DeleteMy source talked about how Vladmir Putin is trying to set up a meeting with leaders from France, Ukraine, and Germany to settle the violence in eastern Ukraine. They plan to "solve" the violence by trying to reach an agreement that the Eu and Russia and Ukraine all agree on. It seems that it will help stop violence, but it might also create new violence.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you on how it could end violence and start violence because the countries both want Ukraine and there is some serious tension between the E.U. and Russia.
DeleteI agree with you on how it could end violence and start violence because the countries both want Ukraine and there is some serious tension between the E.U. and Russia.
DeleteI agree with you as russia and ukraine must resolve things
Delete1. The E.U. is saying that the protests in Ukraine started when the president backed of his deal with the E.U. and made a deal with Russia so they are saying that the reason that it started was because of Russia and how they were influencing Ukraine even though the E.U. think they'll hurt them. On. Russia's side they are sending humanitaian convoys into Ukraine, and that the E.U. was claiming how they were shipping firearms into Ukraine, but it turns out they weren't so now Russia is saying that the E.U. is trying to start conflict between Ukraine and Russia and that maybe the E.U. was the cause of all the violence.
ReplyDelete2.They might have influenced the stories because they want the readers to believe them and not the other people or countries that are going to tell the story a different way.
The different authors and different time of reports could account for one article explaining how Ukrainians are protesting high utility bills and the other discussing the issue of whether Ukraine should go with Russia or Europe.
ReplyDeleteThe European source is leaning towards what Europe is trying to do to get Ukraine to join them. The Russian source could be biased because they want to show that the people are upset so Ukraine will likely join them.
very cool seeing this progress wonder in the future how all this will turn out
DeleteThe first story shows an example of the situation and the second shows the effect. The sources just depend on how the story is told because it matters who the writers got the story from.
ReplyDeleteMy source is about the agreement hoping to be made with Ukraine, Russia, France and Germany. This agreement would give Ukraine more control over its boarders. The hope is that the peace deal will end the conflict in Ukraine
ReplyDelete