The first article I chose to analyze was from Fox News, a generally conservative news source. It is titled “Amazon Rain Forest Not Exactly Burning Earths Lungs Experts Say.” This article makes several claims that are supported by factual evidence. The article mentions scientists as a source but has no data or science experimentation to support their claims. The article doesn’t use emotions to sway the reader. https://www.foxnews.com/science/amazon-fires-are-not-burning-earths-lungs

The second article I chose to analyze was from Huffington Post a generally Liberal news source. It’s titled “Brazils Fires Highlight The Threat Of Deregulation Amid Climate Change.” All claims made in this article are supported with evidence. All of the evidence provided has links, data, and names to support it. Emotions are used to make the reader feel a certain way. The vocabulary the author chose to use flowed nicely and sounded as if it were coming from the experts themselves. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/brazil-amazon-rainforest-fire-climate-change_n_5d5dc2b5e4b02cc97c87eb98

The third article I chose to analyze was from Washington Post a generally neutral news source. The article is titled “Amazon Fires Could Accelerate Global Warming And Cause Lasting Harm To A Cradle Of Biodiversity. This article used facts to support all claims. The facts used were supported by links, data, and names. Emotions are used to make the reader feel a specific way. The author paints a very dark picture of the fires and their effect in Brazil. Word choice was very critical in this article, the describing of the fires and all the people suffering was made very clear. https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2019/08/21/amazonian-rainforest-is-ablaze-turning-day-into-night-brazils-capital-city/