Essay by PaperNerd ContributorCollege, Undergraduate October 2001

download word file, 2 pages 0.0

THE PRESIDENTS RESPONSE On September 11, 2001, a day that will live in infamy, our country was brought to its knees by a group of individuals. Those individuals attacked our country's economic and military symbols. Our country suffered a great loss in those attacks in human live, money, and freedom. As the President of the United States said "It was an act of war".

Many newspapers across the country covered the response by our president. Two of them were USA Toady and the Chicago Sun-Times. Both of these papers covered the same story, however both of them were written completely differently. The article in USA Today was written in words and point of views that people could relate to with out having to re read the paragraph or the article. The article was written with pretty much no loaded words or words that were to long for it. However, the Chicago Sun-Times article was a little harder to relate to the topic cause of it being written in a language that is more designed to focus on the politics.

It included some loaded words, and even thou some words were still hard to understand.

The depth of each article also differed. The USA Today article focused more on what the president had to say about the attack. It focused also more on what the congress and the leaders of the world had to say about the terrible acts against America. The Chicago Sun-Times article focused more on the budget and on the investigation. It focused on how the money will be collected for the retaliation and for the rescue effort. Also it focused on how the intelligence community knew about a threat from their primary suspect in the attack.

The response of the president in each of the articles differed slightly. For example in USA Today the president is quoted in saying; "You"˜re looking at the face of war in the 21st century" but in Chicago Sun-Time that quote nor those words appear nowhere in the article. They were replaced with this quote; "This will be a monumental struggle of good vs. evil, Good will prevail". Both of the quotes mean the same thing, but they are still worded so differently.

President's respond to the attacks was covered well in both of the papers. The articles got to the point either right away or just drag it's way to them. As for my final impression, let's just say that we will win the battle against the evil of terrorism.