¶ … New York Times and the Dallas Morning News The print media has become an effective means to discuss important issues in the society today, especially with the prevalence of newspapers that cater to various audiences or readers today. Political editorials, in particular, serve as the people's daily reference in knowing what is the political stand or position that the newspaper assumes given a particular current issue to discuss. These editorials, however, do not dictate to their readers what position or stand to take on an issue; rather, they serve as another viewpoint at which readers are able to think about the issue. In effect, editorials serve as additional information that lets people understand all facets of a social issue being discussed.

In this paper, I discuss how political editorials from different areas in the United States offer different focus and perspective in bringing into lucidity the issues that society contemplate at present. The political editorials from the New York Times and the Dallas Morning News prove this assertion -- that is, every print medium offers a different perspective in discussing a social issue. In the case of the comparative analysis, the political editorials by both newspapers dated last October 28, 2004, and the editorials centered on the news that Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's Gaza plan has been approved by the Israeli Parliament. Both papers discuss the ramifications...

The Gaza plan proposes that Israeli settlements be withdrawn from Gaza, a plan of action that will benefit the Palestines, who assert that they are the rightful inhabitants of the said area, and will bring anger to Israelites, who have also claimed to be the rightful 'owners' to this "thirsty strip of land." The author offers a critical view of Sharon's Gaza plan -- that is, the plan is far from brokering peace between Israel and Palestine, but is merely a first step towards Sharon's primary objective: "...a central purpose of the Gaza withdrawal plan was to take Palestinian statehood off the table indefinitely." This assertion is supported by bringing back the history of the Israel-Palestine conflict over the two groups' settlement of the West Bank. The author expresses conviction that the Gaza plan is just a plan to avert the attention of the Palestineans to discussing the issue of autonomy. He cites previous instances in which Sharon tried to deviate from discussing peace talks with Palestine, resorting to violence as a way to solving the "settlement policy."
What the author of this editorial is…