The following is my personal analysis and comparison of the writing styles of two articles regarding a newly proposed bill in North Carolina.
LA Times: “After transgender bathroom battle, North Carolina looks to ban same-sex marriage”
The LA Times covers this story by first mocking the state of North Carolina in the lead paragraph, and then goes into more depth, showing a new bill proposed by three Republican state legislators that would go against a Supreme Court ruling. The LA Times shows quotes from other legislators, republicans, democrats, and scholars. They also include some statistics and poll results outlining the support of same-sex marriage in the state. They compare it to the Supreme Court rulings against segregation in public schools, and how the rulings were challenged for years afterward.
This story also states that the bill is not likely to pass, and that it will not even be discussed at the next hearing.
Washington Post: “North Carolina bill banning same-sex marriage again won’t be heard, House speaker says”
The Washington Post article sticks to the facts of the bill. The article begins by saying that the bill is “dead on arrival,” letting the readers know that there is nothing to fear about this bill. The article then goes into more detail as to why the Supreme Court ruling will hold, and also goes into more detail about what the proposed bill contains.
After explaining what the proposed bill entails, the article takes a slight turn and goes on to discuss House Bill 2, the bill regarding transgender people using the bathroom of their choice, which was overturned recently.
The LA Times article was not necessarily opinionated, however any reader would be able to tell what stance the author was taking. The Washington Post article, however was very straightforward and very factual. By reading the Washington Post article, I would have no idea what the opinion of the author was. That is something that is important to me. I strive to write articles that are purely factual, especially when it comes to politics.
The use of quotes was also very different between the two stories. The Washington Post article had only a few direct quotes from two sources, and quoted the proposed bill twice, whereas the LA Times article was made up of about 50 percent quotes. Quotes are important, but the quotes in the LA Times article became almost unnecessary near the end.
The Washington Post article also used a few multimedia elements, such as photos, tweets and links, whereas the LA Times article only had one photo as the feature image.
In my opinion, the Washington Post article was written better than the LA Times article. The style of writing in the Washington Post article is what I would like to think my style of writing encompasses.