1) The Jerusalem Press http://www.jpost.com/VideoArticles/Video/Article.aspx?id=288908
2) The kind of content I am encountering is the way the two presidential candidates answered with how they would deal with Israel if Iran obtained nuclear weapons. The third debate was about foreign policy, so Israel came into the debate when Iran was talked about, since Iran could threat Israel with a bomb at any time. Both candidates agreed they would, ” …stand by Israel if it was attacked by Iran.” The article also talked how the U.S. would react to Israel bombing Iran, but both candidates chose not to answer.
3) The information is complete for the country of Israel, since they want to know how the United States, their ally, would react if their foe, Iran, bombed or attacked them. So according to the Islamic people, yes, the information is complete. To others from outside of Israel, the information would not be complete because it did not mention how the candidates would respond to other countries about foreign policy. Syrians, to Malians, Lybians, Iraqi’s, etc. would feel left out since the article did not mention them, but all of these countries were talked about.
4) The source is from The Jerusalem Press, and their correspondent wrote the article. I believe the woman who wrote it because she is obviously trust worthy, since she is working for such a credible website. According to the website, it says The Jerusalem Press is Israel’s best-selling English daily and most read English website. After reading this, I knew the article was very credible. Also, I saw a fact check website on the last debate, and everything the candidates said on Israel and Iran were correct, which makes the correspondent’s article even more credible.
5) The evidence that is presented is that it is a very credible website, Jerusalem Press. And I’m not sure if the correspondent was at the debate since it says Washington at the beginning of the article. If she was, than the evidence is very credible. Even if she got the facts from watching it online or from a transcript of the debate, it would still be credible. The article was not very opinion based; it stated the facts of the debate and the opinions of the candidates. Never did it state the correspondents opinion on the debate.
6) An alternative explanation could be what the presidents reactions would be if Jerusalem’s neighboring countries started to bomb or threaten them with violence, since the Middle East is full of violence and terrorism. What could have been cool is if we heard the journalist’s opinion on what the candidates said about her country. Not to sway the reader one way or another, but just to hear an outside opinion on the matter.
7) Yes, I think I am learning what I need too. I do not follow politics, and this was the only presidential debate, besides the other two, that I have watched. I have only heard some information on the violence between Jerusalem and Iran gets bad, and this article really explained to me how intense it is through quotes from Obama and Romney, and some facts on the issues. Some online websites do not look official, but The Jerusalem Press gave me more knowledge on the issue than the two candidates.
1) Morocco World News http://www.moroccoworldnews.com/2012/10/62035/obama-aggressive-in-foreign-policy-debate-with-romney/
2) The kind of content I encountered was how Obama was way more aggressive the final round of debates. Obama put, “…in an effort to blunt his opponent’s surge in an effort to blunt his opponent’s surge in the polls with two weeks left until Election Day.” The first round of debates, Obama did not refute claims from Romney, and looked timid. Two nights ago, the last round of debate, he was on fire, refuting Romney’s claims on foreign policy. He criticized the Republican party for missing ideas on the Middle East, and how Romney’s ideas on foreign policy to Obama were like the 1980’s again.
3) I think the information is not complete. It is a short article compared to the 90 minute real debate, and it only states the general ideas that were mentioned, and never went into detail about the foreign policy. Yes, the article talked about Romney’s and Obama’s opinions on how they would solve foreign policies, but the article did not go into exact detail on how they would solve it; only skimmed the surface. The article stated a sentence about how one candidate felt about the topic, added a direct quote from one of them, and that was it; that topic would be over in the article. The newspaper could have added more substance and opinion if anything after the quote.
4) The sources from this article is from The Morocco World News website. On their website, it says their vision is, “Speaking the truth, disseminating the truth, and raising the questions about the truth are the main principles guiding the work of Morocco World News.” When it comes to the article, their are two authors, and it seems like they are pretty credible sources. The Morocco World News website seems pretty credible themselves, which means their journalists are reliant as well.
5) The evidence that is presented is that it is a very credible website. Just like the quote I put in number 4, The Morocco World News website is known as being very reliant, truthful, and practicing good Journalism. They also put the candidates quotes in there and talked about them after. It seems like the two authors know what they are talking about. It all comes down to the website, and The Morocco World News is a very trustful source.
6) An alternative explanation could be how Romney was also aggressive in the last debate. The article is basically about Obama’s refutes to Romney’s claims. However, it was definitely not all Obama. It was still 50/50, but Obama was more outgoing than the other two debates. The Morocco World News are making Obama look better than Romney. If anything they should note than Obama was the weaker of the two in the first debate. Lastly, this article could have much more opinion. It’s always interesting to hear the journalist’s views on the debate.
7) I believe I am not learning what I need too. First off, the article was short for all of the information that was given to the audience during the 90 minute debate. Secondly, the article was all about Obama and how he did much better than Romney. Even if Obama was better, they should make the article equal about the two candidates. The writers didn’t include too much about Romney; it was how Obama did much better than him. The article included how The Cold War is going to repeat itself, according to Obama, and how Romney’s ideas are lacking on the Middle East. I wish they would include some of Romney’s strong points from the debate.
I think the Jerusalem Post was a very credible source. The article did a great job stating how the candidates would defend Israel if Iran attacked them. I wish the article talked more of what other issues were that were discussed in the debate, but it makes sense the article is strictly on Israel’s foreign policy with Iran since it is an Israeli paper. As Obama said in his debate, “I went to Yad Beshef (ph), the Holocaust museum there, to remind myself the nature of evil and why our bond with Israel will be unbreakable.” There you have it- proof that the article was correct on saying that the U.S. will always have Israel’s back. The objective was to inform Israel’s people of how the United States would react to threats from other countries or vice versa. So to Israelis, the writers covered the objective. If an outsider was reading the article, I think they would want more information of what else the two candidates said about the foreign policy and other countries. All in all, it seemed like the write used all of the information correctly from the debate.
I think The Morocco World News article was also a credible source. They used all of the correct and informative quotes from the debate that proves why Obama did a better job than Romney. Just like this quote says from the online transcript of the debate, “Nothing Governor Romney just said is true, starting with this notion of me apologizing.” Obama was quite a fighter the last debate, and it showed in the debate with his look of confidence in his appearance and his words. As the Morocco World News said, “Obama was the aggressor from the start.” He proved to the world who he really is the final debate, and this article said it all. However, they could have described the parts of the debate when Romney took control so it’s an equal article. But I liked how they did it to one side, since Romney controlled the first debate.