The two media sources i picked are Smithsonian Magazine and National Geographic. And the disaster i'm doing is “Gates of Hell”. This disaster occurred in 1971.What happened to make this catastrophe. Well, one day in 1971, a group of soviet geologist went looking for an oil field. During the search they thought they found an oil field, so they began to drill. But little did they know they were drilling on a cavernous pocket of natural gas that couldn't support the weight of the drill. The gases that came out was a casualty for animal. So they lit the crater on fire thinking the gases would burn away. It's been 40 years and it still burns.
My two media sources are alike because they both have the story that happened that day. For example they …show more content…
They only show the crater with the fire burning. In the article they talk about the fatalities of animals they came near the crater. They did not show any of the animals that died. If they were not sensitive to the readers eyes they would show the animals that died. Smithsonian Magazine weakness is they didn't have enough information. But the information was accurate. The information is was second hand but it did give me knowledge of what transpired. One the other hand National Geographic's had long paragraphs with more information. It even had more pictures and first hand information. The information from both was also reliable at the end, despite the pros and cons.
National geographics and Smithsonian Magazine both have reliable pictures of the disaster. Both new sources(National Geographics and Smithsonian magazine) were deemed reliable to me. How does the news media (radio, newspaper, television, internet) impact our interpretation of events related to world-wide disasters? They impact our interpretation because our environments go by what their reliable news station says, in this case National Geographics and Smithsonian magazine. So if they say the soviet team caused this disaster, that what their going
My two media sources are alike because they both have the story that happened that day. For example they …show more content…
They only show the crater with the fire burning. In the article they talk about the fatalities of animals they came near the crater. They did not show any of the animals that died. If they were not sensitive to the readers eyes they would show the animals that died. Smithsonian Magazine weakness is they didn't have enough information. But the information was accurate. The information is was second hand but it did give me knowledge of what transpired. One the other hand National Geographic's had long paragraphs with more information. It even had more pictures and first hand information. The information from both was also reliable at the end, despite the pros and cons.
National geographics and Smithsonian Magazine both have reliable pictures of the disaster. Both new sources(National Geographics and Smithsonian magazine) were deemed reliable to me. How does the news media (radio, newspaper, television, internet) impact our interpretation of events related to world-wide disasters? They impact our interpretation because our environments go by what their reliable news station says, in this case National Geographics and Smithsonian magazine. So if they say the soviet team caused this disaster, that what their going