In this piece by Marc Lacey, He decides that the best way to showcase the effects of the recent Arizona law upon immigration, is to show how the Latino residents of Arizona believe if it is right or wrong. He uses a Latino married couple who are both on opposite spectrum of the law. This helps showcase both beliefs held by conservatives and liberals around the state, but shares a emotional appeal because the law effects them directly. It helps spread social capital by gathering voices in the community of Phoenix to express how they feel. It charges reform and helps spread the different voices that can be heard on this harsh law in Arizona, being heard around the world.

This opinion piece brings about a good sense of social capital. It helps charge the argument against Arizona's immigration reform. Mrs Greenhouse recites past Arizona laws to fuel her argument that it is not Arizona's, as a state, right to change the law on enforcing citizenship. It helps spread social capital because her argument brings people together to talk about the constitutionality and the moral responsibility of the law implaced. She never states places where the community or the reader can get involved in this change, but she does give the reader ideas on possible protests one can do to show there thoughts on the unlawful act.

This opinion piece leaves us with a very one-sided argument. It is written by a American author who essentially writes a fluff piece about how Americans helped this boy who was hurt by his own people. His writing is very well done in that he causes the reader to believe that with out American help the boy would have died. His argument is extremely flawed in that aspect and its most likely because he is writing for the LA Times, so his reader base is mainly Southern californian Americans. His argument witch is based around the incident of a young child being hurt by a road side bomb does pull at the heart strings but he doesn't give any point of view to the opposite sides and because of that his argument is hurt.

This piece is very informative upon the leakage of information upon death tolls hidden from the public. The bias is very minimal by exposing professional views from both politicians denouncing the news and from Assange who backs his documents. It uses the documents to sight the atrocious actions that have happened and helps define the readers side on where they may possibly stand. And they push the reader to look forward to more possible information coming. There may be a possible fault line upon that the news if coming from a american source and it has been a reoccurring trend to denounce the government, many claims have came out that the government is hiding facts from us and this helps fuel the fire.

This is a poor look into a book that is a supposed lie. The author of the article never proves any of his facts with actual names or ways to establish his testament to the truth. They only look at it from the authors perspective and never ask for readers aspect on the situation. His deductions are merely suggestions and we are left to wonder how he came up with these facts.

In this article we are given the grim past of Brazil's slums and the current on going struggle that the police department face upon battling crime. The author delved deeply into the opposing sides that the citizens face, showing both positive and negative affects the police and the drug dealers offer. The are very unbiased upon there assumptions and do not point a finger at who is bad. They display the facts upon the history of the current situation and what may happen in the future.

This is a example of poor journalism. It barely grazes the surface of the issue and leaves the audience with many unanswered questions.We know nothing more upon the united food and commercial workers announcement other than that it was announced. There was no in depth research made and it shows through its lack of any experts being cited. This is merely a article stating the poor facts of a single group. It does not uphold both sides of the issue and doesn't expose anything upon the side it is talking about. Through this article we can see that Associated Press may hold a certain opinion on this heated issue. It is held upon a very liberal stance by not allowing the reader any insight to the other voices that may be heard.

This piece lives up to the basics of standard journalism. It offers information at face value, Giving the facts but never delving into more lucrative details. You can tell that the author never had to go out in the field to do more research. It was easily compiled fact list. The story did entitle itself to not choosing a side and upheld its integrity by allowing both view points on the highly touchy subject of illegal immigration. No where in here do we find the viewpoints of Miller-McCune and it also upholds its journalistic deputy to address the facts of the issue and not the opinions of their bosses.