Overall praising President Trump's support of Israel and its continued massacre of Gaza and the West Bank.

Intended Audience: I think both articles intended to reach both national and international audiences. Most importantly, I think they are national focused. The intent seems to be "which side will this country as a whole normalize and support in regard to American politics affecting world politics?"

Tone: The tone's are vastly different in both publications. The tone of the Australian paper is critical, cautionary and gives the reader the message that these are not normal or non-violent sentiments by the American President. The Israeli paper is pejorative to the crisis in both Israel and the U.S. It's tone is normalizing the stark authoritarianism from both leaders.

Lastly, while the Australian article had a wide variety of photos accompanying the story, the only photos in the entire article in the Israeli paper are solo shots of PM Netanyahu. The cover photo being when he and President Trump had a dinner at the White House this past Monday, and President Trump is blurred to near unrecognition. A clear intent to prop up PM Netanyahu as a strong, incisive world leader.

I would say that the primary intended audience of this paper would be Australians, with a more specific second priority of reaching Australians who are connected to the city of Sydney. Their intent doesn't much seem to be getting readers from outside their country or continent. Their content feels more exclusive as many of their articles, specifically local articles are paywalled. They seem to be targeting a more specific type of person. Australians who care about a variety of topics and have a strong desire to stay informed, thus willing to pay for the content.

2) Tone

The general tone of this news source could be described as informative. I learned quite a bit clicking through articles as much of the tone was informational and to the point. Not to say there wasn't bias or the occasional scandalous or feel-good opinion pieces. However, these pieces were dwarfed by the presence of numerous objective, veritable stories.

3) News Mix Above the Scroll

I think this source did quite a good job of choosing a wide variety of stories. Their mix was interesting, eye catching and could fit nearly anyone's particular fancy. There were important factoids alongside a kitschy, feel-good stories. A large majority of the articles tended to stay true to their intended audience while remaining multifaceted and varied.

4) Pictures

They tended to use less pictures, but the photos they did choose were strong, very descriptive photos that acted as tools to tell the stories more effectively. Their photos tended to be less biased. I would argue that maybe even the photos they choose are inherently skewed to the positive regardless of the divisive nature of whomever they were reporting on. For example, Donald Trump tends to have a multitude of unpleasant photos to choose from, but photos of him were typically still ones that made him look almost normal or fair.

5) Words

Aside from moments of national pride or warning of dangerous events or ideologies, this news source was quite to the point with their words. They tended to use factual statements and strayed away from allegations or conjecture.

My impression of this news source is both heavily targeting Israeli's and surrounding countries with interest. I would allege that they have another target audience high in their list of priorities; anyone interested in the on-going conflict in that region of the world.

The Jerusalem Post is not paywalled, but there are a obscene number of advertisements. From the constant small photos on side of every article and home page, to the video ads that kept popping up, to ads that interrupted a scroll through any article and filled the screen to the point that you had to find the tiny 'close' button. A lot of ads.

2) Tone

All I can say about the tone of this source apart from the analysis included below is that it felt like they were pushing an agenda. Not a single article I read felt as though it was reporting straight facts. It's inevitable, I believe, to often have a bias to any written work, but the bias seems, frankly, not so carefully deliberate.

3) News Mix Above the Scroll

I would say that there is not a lot of great diversity in choice of topics. Additionally, many of the articles are covering very similar topics. For example, a large majority of the articles I saw were either related to President Trump, the United States or the Palestinian genocide (which of course is very skewed towards Israel's narrative of the situation). It goes without saying that this makes sense, given the conflict going on in their very own country. However, the lack of any attempt to include much else was notable.

4) Pictures

The Israeli paper tended to lean on photography a lot to tell the story, but also to tell the story from a specific lens. It was evident that the photos taken were meant to give a particular color to each story.

5) Words

The articles in this newspaper seemed slightly lengthier and more tended to use a lot of quotes from sources. Much of the content was either conjecture, bias, or altogether unsubstantiated. It tended to use a lot more flowery language and adjectives to describe simple statements.

One of the most interesting things I noted while surfing both of these publications' websites, was their separate focuses.

The Sydney Morning Herald has topics ranging from Politics, Business, World, Sydney (Aus), Food, Lifestyle, Traveller and Sport. This is a WIDE variety of news topics. They even have a wide array of subtopics that are clearly identified in every headline. The headline "I searched 'Trump' and 'golf'. Now the algorithms think I'm a white supremacist" is under the 'opinion' subcategory 'racism'. Amongst many others, there's Education, LGBTQ, Sexual Health, Cinema and more. This publication seems to mostly publish news. Pure and simple. Even with their opinion pieces, there is conjecture and room to be wrong.

In stark contrast, the only headline tabs for different types of news available on the Jerusalem Post are Israel News, World News, Middle East and Business & Innovation. Their subcategories are listed as "Archaeology, Read-Estate, Health & Wellness, Kabbalah, Environment, Antisemitism, Podcasts, and Aliyah. The variety and options of the types of news you're getting depending on which site you choose to consume media from, is drastically unequal. The Jerusalem Post seems to be less reporting and leans quite a bit more towards what I would consider propaganda.

In the traditional U.S. self-interest, I was also intrigued to see how even in categories that weren't "world news", the Israeli paper used U.S. and global news in much of their reporting, regardless of the niche. For example, in the Business & innovation section, there's an entire article about Trump and Truth Social's use of AI, with the article following being about Trump and his 10% equity stake in Intel. Whereas I had to scroll into the subcategories of Business articles under 'Banking and Finance' on The Sydney Herald for a significantly longer time before finding a U.S. related article. And, again, this article was headlined "Trump's diabolical plan to take control of the Fed rings alarm bells". And that was the only U.S. related article I could find for quite some time when continuing to search. The tone of these two papers truly could not be more different.

However, I would say that my overall assessment of the two news sources laid out at the top of my Padlet are accurately portrayed in these two articles. The Sydney Herald continues to peddle mostly straight news with little apparent bias. Their article successfully lays out of the facts of the situation, cautions with sound medical advice and provides information of government response. The Jerusalem Post takes a more of a bias point of view with lots of personal quotes and conjecture. This article did include some more factual information like the number of patients treated, dates and timelines of the organization's work, and the scope of their trip. However, the bulk of the article could be considered biased. As a human-interest story, versus a public health event it makes sense that the tones of the two articles wouldn't be directly comparable.

Additionally, both stories use photos to sway their viewers. There is 1 photo in the Australian article and 2 photos in the Israeli article. In the Israeli story, accompanying the photo of ICC Chief Prosecutor Karim Khan, whom the story is intended to be about, there is a photo of PM Netanyahu and Yoav Gallant.

The specific photos they chose are also really intriguing when we look at the composition and quality. The photo of the former Thai PM, Paetongtarn Shinawatra, is a normal, clear photo. She even looks quite beautiful with a soft smile on her face. The photo that the Israeli editors chose was a blurry, potentially green-screen photo of ICC Chief Prosecutor Karim Khan. He looks angry and is mid-sentence. Both articles are based on reportedly 'scandalous' or 'malfeasant' acts by the article's subjects, but one purposely paints the subject as angry. The other could potentially be described by critics as a glorification of the subject, as it's a nice photo they chose of her.

Otherwise, the article is a memoriam, so it definitely has a biased tone towards their country's soldier dying.

The article did not mention the refugee camp school that was attacked and killed 17, wounding 80 Palestinians on the same day.

I learned so much and really enjoyed comparing news outlets from outside the U.S.

It was a great way to become more informed and learn how to be analytical in my media consumption!