For my two articles, I chose two where they talked about how Ramzi Yousef, a terrorist who took part in the 1993 World Trade Center Bombing, wants to get out of solitary confinement and be with the other prisoners. The first article was from the Chicago Tribune and it was a long peace. They start the article by describing his prison life and the size of the cell he is living in. In the article, the writer uses sources such as a humanities professor about how solitary confinement could psychologically damage these prisoners. The framing used here was a bit of both "get him out of solitary confinement" vs "he should be locked in there for the rest of his life. The writer, Richard A. Serrano, carefully doesn't get on either side and plays it safe.
The other article was from the Huffington Post and this one was much shorter than the Chicago Tribune one. The article starts off with "First, Ramzi Yousef declared war on the United States government, vowing to wage jihad with bombs. Now, the convicted ringleader of the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center has taken his fight to the courtroom." This writer just hits it out of the gate and attacks him. The only source they got was something from CNN. The Framing here was on the side of "Lock him up" because of the way the writer starts off.
Out of these two articles, I prefer the Chicago Tribune one because it was detailed and it played on both sides. The framing works here because it makes you think rather than just hearing from one side. The other one was much shorter and really didn't get into a ton of detail. Framing allows us to analyze a important topic and have a debate about it. Here, we could if whether or not this man should be in confinement or not.
No comments:
Post a Comment