Hurricane+Katrina+RTL

- In your opinion, which of these 2 articles is more objective. - Explain your answer with specific quotations taken from the texts.

Katrina "Hurricane Katrina,One-Year Later" "The Threatening Storm"

Hurricane Katrina was a terrible strom happened in 2005 in Orleans, America. It caused lots of long-lasting effects between government and people. Both "Hurricane Katrina,One-Year Later" by FEMA and "The Threatening Storm" by Michael Grunwald which was writing for Time Magazine are talking about Hurricane Katrina,but their opinions are very different. This is showed through the vocabularies and images. By these stuff, the biases that authors have are showed clearly. But by contrasting the 2 articles, the second one could be more objective. Vocabulary is the most obvious thing which could improve "The Threantening Storm" is more objective. In "Hurricane Katrina, One-Year Later", in the first paragragh, the author discribed Katrina as "the most destructive-and costly-natural disaster in U.S. history." In fact, Katrina was not the most terrible strom happened in U.S. There was another storm in 1994 which was much worse and killed more people than Katrina,but in this article, "unprecedented magnitude" was how it told its readers. In "The Threatening Storm", it was much more objective. It said "Katrina was not the Category 5 killer the Big Easy had always feared. It was a Category 3 storm that missed New Orleans, where it was at worst a weak 2." The author did not exaggerate or understate the extent of Katrina. the things he said were all researching results. The first article exaggerated the extent of the storm to indirectly tell the readers that it was not the fause of the government that being slow of the initial response. This is subjective. But in the second article, although the author wanted to emphasize Katrina was not a very very big storm, he srill recorded the truth of how big it was. Thus, by the using of vocabularies, it's easily to see how "The Threatening Storm" is objective instead of "Hurricane Katrina,One-Year Later". Image is another powerful thing to improve this opinion. The benefit to use images is could make the readers be more affected by the things that author says. In "Hurricane Katrina,One-Year Later", there is no image at all. The author used statistics to list how much work the government did and how much money FEMA paid to help the recovery. But no image, because the author could not use images. There were so much work to do, and what they did was just a corner of and icy mountain. In "The Threatening Storm", there were several images which discribed the condition and how it looked like after Katrina. "the squalor in the Superdome, the desperation on the rooftops, the shocking pictures of the Mardi Gras city underwater for weeks" -These are all the images after the disaster. By using of the images, the author showed readers how terrible Katrina effected New Orleans, and this would become a foreshadowing of talking about the misstep of the U.S. government. Images were the true pictures which could improve how objective "The Threatening Storm" is. Being objective is a difficult thing, but there must be one that is more objective. Because the authors' biases are different, the opinion that 2 articles hold are different too. By contrasting "Hurricane Katrina,One-Year Later" and "The Threatening Storm", the using of vocabularies and images could clearly show how the second article is more objective. Notising this could help the readers understand the facts about the role of U.S. government during Hurricane Katrina better.