Within the two articles I noticed one thing which was the articles were like good and evil.
The article from Washington post talks about how he is building his legacy and the other article is talking about what he has done wrong for the country and condemning him for everything he has done wrong.
Although one is almost just one person’s personnel opinion seeing how the news article bashes him every way they possibly can, while the other article gets opinion based around people who know him personally, for example like his wife Laura Busch. She mentions that he is just trying to build a legacy by protecting the ocean and its inhabitants.
The article from salon.com mention’s how Busch has messed up our country and done terrible things, it is followed by how Obama is going to fix these problems, which is pretty silly in my opinion because he could follow in the footsteps of Busch and continue not trying to fix the problems. After all you can’t expect high standards from him he isn’t our president yet.
With Busch being one of the strongest men in the country he has done something pretty good for our country which is protect our waters. When instating this he earned major points with not only environmentalist but regular people as well. In my opinion when he passed the bill he has taken a lot of the terrible things he has done and turned them around, but it still doesn’t take back what he has done.
1 comment:
What I notice about the structure is that in the beginning he talks about one of the articles first and than the other one. What I found effective is how he states both sides of the articles but he also doesn't really state his opinion of Bush in the article. What I would change is I would want to see you state your opinion somewhere in the blog.
Post a Comment