The Drudge Report vs. The Huffington Post

Both of these news sites have similar layouts along with relative main stories. The difference lies in how these topics are discussed and the views that they hold. The Drudge Report tells a story about President Obama, yet frames him in a way  that could be seen as him incompetent of his presidential roles. The headline for the story is "Russia Lectures Obama on Iran 'Sanctions'."  The word 'lectures' in this title makes Obama seem incapable or unaware of the particular affairs taking place. After making this conclusion, I would assume that The Drudge Report is a conservative paper who does not agree with nor respect Obama. The Huffington Post has a bold headline that states the amount America has spent on the Afghan war. To me, The Huffington Post seems to be blaming our country's monetary issues on previous republican president, George Bush. This paper gives a liberal viewpoint on the war and seems to blame many current issues on the past presidency. 

The criteria for choosing news stories seems to be relevant with current issues, but the leading stories are still what journalists know will sell the most copies. Although many leading stories do discuss topics of importance, I truly believe that money is the number one driving force behind decision-making. Stories regarding the war or presidential elections have been dominating the news attention for some time now. Newspapers know this topic arises much confrontation and curiosity, both characteristics which will sell papers. I do not doubt most newspapers desire to inform, but I do doubt their priorities at times. Although popular news stories are often times informative, it does not mean that they are what should be deemed as most 'important.'

Both The Huffington Post and The Drudge Report have fairly bold headlines. Although the stories do relate with the headlines, I feel that both newspapers allowed their headings to be much stronger than they were able to support. A strong headline should lead into a strong news piece, which in hand means that hard facts need to be present. I understand that a headline is what captures a reader, but I do not find it credible nor fair for a newspaper to abuse this privilege. 

I do believe that both these sites have the power to influence the public because they are not afraid to pick one side of an issue. The less neutral that a newspaper remains, the more influential I believe it to be. Although I may not necessarily agree with a newspaper's point of view, it still has the power to make me think in a different light than I may on my own. Neutral newspapers do not hold this same power because they are unable to require their readers to remain objective and critical. A piece which simply informs does not allow much emotion to spark in its reader.