On Friday, October 21, 2016, Cathleen Decker and Noah Bierman two political writers wrote the article "This election is much more than Trump vs. Clinton. It's old America vs. new America" at Los Angeles Times analyzing this presidential campaign full of contrasts. In the article both authors presented and analyzed each candidate's point of view to the needs of the county. Then, they described the two kind of Americans and who they support the most. The political writers of the Los Angeles Time political blog stated that people supported --"Republicans with older and white voters, and Democrats with younger, more culturally and racially diverse ones". Then, Decker and Bierman contrast each candidate with his/her strengths and weakness; presided, by voter's comments about both candidates. Finally, the authors pointed that we could be going under a political realignment when the mentioned "'the nation's demographic changes add to the urgency of recognizing how precarious our position has became' said the report by the Republican National Committee." They also reported their analysis and according to their reports Hillary Clinton emerged victorious.
     Decker and Bierman are two prestigious political writers, there is a reason why they work for Los Angeles Times on of the biggest news cites along the nation. For his side Bierman is a graduate from duke who has been in the business of politics for a long time, and he also has worked for important newspaper around the country like The Boston Globe. Cathleen Decker is a veteran covering presidential campaigns as well as senator campaigns meaning tat she has a lot of experience analyzing political debates. The authors try to reach general public, they used general language meaning that they want everyone to understand and not to get bored. In addition, they try to inform all the public about the analysis of the debates by the point of view of two professionals. In general, I agree with the analysis of the authors. They are being objective and rational. They exposed the argument of both candidates and support their arguments with evidence, people opinions, and reports from the national Republican Committee. 
      In conclusion, the authors made an incredible work with this analysis. They presented facts and didn't picked a side just informing the audience with facts, reports and evidence. I agree with the authors analysis.    

On Wednesday, October 6, 2016, The Editorial board at The New York Times published an article called " The Supreme Court Revisits Insider Trading" where they explains how insider trading is affecting the people and public justice. Insider Trading refers to the illegal practice of trading on the stock exchange to one's own advantage through having access to confidential information. The Editorial Board argues that the practice of insider trading is affecting the public by providing confidential information to relatives or special investors that will get substantial monetary or reputation benefits that later on they will shared them with the person who provided such information. The Editorial has incredible points to discuss; however, they should had presented more information about this important issue as well as deep inside it. The article is short, but it is full of important information and facts that get the reader straight to the point. The authors clearly publish this article to the general public hoping that the public put more emphasis on this issue that deals no only with finance crime but also with the Supreme Court if the judges leave this crime unpunished it will lead to bigger issues, the editorial board stated "absolving Mr. Salman would set precedent that would make the fight to stop illegal insider trading even harder". They keep the audience by providing the article with a real court case "Dirks v, S.E.D., the case provides the article with facts.
       The argument  illegal insider trading that the editorial board is presenting is well supported with facts and with values such as Justice and Honesty. As they explained that inside trading is not well defined by the federal laws, they stated that courts have said that it is a crime for an insider to share confidential information to get benefits either money or reputational. This issue is important to the government or it should be the authors are putting The Supreme Court on the line questioning it if they can enforce justice or they will let Bassam Salman and Mr Kara unpunished  
            In conclusion, the Editorial Board  made a great work presenting this argument and backing the arguments with evidence like the court case and Salman's trial. it convinced me that we should do something in order to stop inside trading because on the 21st century and a country where we value honesty and justice these kind of illegal practices should be banned and Bassam Salman should be the example of it. it didn't changed any of my mind, but that last line really hit own my values "justice shall be done".