Reporting on the Bush Plan for Social Security

Reporting on the Bush Plan for Social Security

Following the State of the Union address, the New York Times and the New York Post ran articles on the President’s new plan for Social Security. When comparing the first paragraphs of these articles, several similarities arise: both articles begin with a single sentence as the opening paragraph which described the rest of the content of the article. The Post article uses a more colloquial sentence structure and vocabulary, as well as a factual tone. It does not reference the State of the Union; rather, it gives a summary of the plan. The Times article has a more analytical tone, and a more elevated style and diction that the former. The plan is described as “bold”; the article utilizes phrases that suggest that there is far more to this plan than readily apparent: “morning-after scrutiny”; “details not readily apparent” (Rosenbaum). The article refers to the State of the Union, though concentrating on the impact of the new plan rather than the plan itself. These trends continued through the rest of each of the pieces.

While the New York Post article contains a minimal review of the plan’s effect, the New York Times assumes the reader has prior knowledge of the new strategy and discusses its economic impact. The Post article did not once report that this new initiative was disclosed during the State of the Union; however, it does contain quotes from the address describing the problem and Bush’s intended solution. The Times article does not contain any direct quotes from the speech; instead, a “senior administration official” (Rosenbaum) is used to defend the plan against critics. The Post describes the Bush plan in a positive light, reporting the story in the spirit President Bush proposed it, while only briefly touching on the possible negative outcomes. The Times suggests outright that there are major fallacies in the plan by questioning what the new plan would entail monetarily. Both...