Based on the article written by Farrah Naz Karim in the News Straits Times dated 26th August

2010 and another article written by Amy Chew et.al on the same date in the Star newspaper,
these are the comparisons between both articles.

The first and second headlines portray the issue from a non bias point of view which sides to no
country. The second headline rather implies Malaysia as a victim of the situation and shows bias
to the country. Both articles mention the same person which is Malaysia’s Foreign Affairs
Minister, Datuk Seri Anifah Aman. Article A stated what happened, when it happened, and how
it happened. It also mention on why the event happened. As for article B, all the information are
included but in a more detailed form. In article A, the readers are enlightened about what
happened in the news followed by when and how it happened. Article B relates the incidence and
the effects on Malaysia by first explaining how the incidence happened, then including further
details of what happened in the event.

In article A, the word choices describe bias to Malaysians. For example, the Indonesians whom
have been provoking Malaysia is labeled as culprits while Malaysians are level-headed and
patient. As for article B, the word choices are in a more formal and politically correct form.
Article B have no visuals to compare with, however the visuals in article A is not helpful in
complementing the report as it only displays Datuk Seri Anifah Aman’s picture. Based on the
contents of the articles, article A is aimed for people from the middle class while article B is
aimed for people with higher importance in the government.

In a nutshell, article B contains more factual information making it less sensational compared to
article A. Meanwhile, article A shows the most bias with it word choices. Short but packed with
information make article A easier to understand but is less balanced than article B.