Originally Posted by roachboy

i assume that this is posted as a kind of demonstration of your "thesis" about these two papers, which you will no doubt extend into a general argument about "the media".

if that is the objective, why be coy about it? you obviously have an argument you wish to make, so why pretend otherwise?

are you willing to entertain objections concerning the status of anecdotal evidence?
you can "prove" anything you like if you control the sample and the rules for generalization.
even you should know this.

from this follows the question of whether this exercize is a waste of time or not.

just getting the ground rules straight.