Liberal vs. Conservative News

The two news sources I looked over were counterpunch.org, a liberal website, and townhall.com, a conservative website. After noting, with some amusement, the paid advertisements on each website – a book titled “Bush in Babylon: The Recolonization of Iraq” on counterpunch and a t-shirt sporting Hillary Clinton and the phrase “RE-DEFEAT COMMUNISM” on townhall – I proceeded to examine articles on the war in Iraq. I came across two that were similar in their theme – how should we view the war? – but, of course, infinitely different in their content and their tone.

On counterpunch, the main article was, “Our Imperial Leader Has Spoken. Can We Doubt Him? Let Me Count the Ways,” and on townhall, there was an article titled, “How Goes the War?” The titles foreshadow the articles that follow them. The article on the liberal website is openly derisive of the war, while that of the conservative website is mellow and mildly hopeful about it. In its first sentence, the article on counterpunch (liberal) mentions the death toll in Iraq and the ironic theory of a supporter – Paul Wolfowitz, a former Pentagon official, to be exact - on how it is a success. The first sentence of townhall’s article (conservative), however, emphasizes that the status of the war depends on the person who is talking/writing.

Counterpunch focuses on the Bush administration’s stand on the war, including their initial lack of evidence for it and their lies and deception in continuing to support it. It derides a certain speech by Bush, notes his whining tone and observes his awkward use of grammar. Overall, it is critical of the president, and clearly states that the war is wrong. Townhall, on the other hand, focuses on an instance of success in Iraq: Anbar, a region that was previously very dangerous, but isn’t any more. It suggests that war is uncertain, but that we must persevere. Rather than picking on Bush, it references Hillary Clinton, her husband, and a few other democrats. These references are not made in the best light: the wavering views of these democrats are brought forth. The final message is that the war exists, sometimes in success, other times in failure, but, either way, it must be seen through to the end.

The writing styles of the two articles are very much unalike. The liberal website’s article is mocking and sarcastic. It mentions Britney Spears’ air headed support of the president. At one point, the writer even asks for a “sick bag” in response to what Bush said. The conservative website’s article is much more serious, but the way in which it mentions Hillary Clinton’s views is similar to the way in which the other website mentions Britney Spears’ views. I suppose the goal is the same, only the method is different.