Heim does well to talk about other's stance on the issue. Even though our candidates had nothing to say on the issue, we hear about Jill Stein. We also hear about Obama and his early inaction on his stance about the pipeline. Obama soon after halted the construction but we don't hear about that yet here. Heim has a sympathy towards the native americans and uses pathos to get us to appeal to them. He talks about their suffering and the art culture they created. Heim does have a bias but he appealed to the other side a little bit.

Heim, Joe "Showdown over Oil pipeline becomes a National Movement for Native Americans" The Washington Post. 7 Sept. 2016. Web 11 Oct. 2016.

Joe Heim expresses the importance of this issue by describing it as a movement. Heim stays balanced on the issue, leaning slightly left on it showing both sides throughout the article and the arguments they are making. He expresses the importance of the land that the DAPL would cut through. He also addresses the environmental impacts that the DAPL would have on the surrounding area. Heim brings to light the issues of the private security hired to prevent the protesters. The private security used harmful techniques to push the protesters back like attack dogs, and pepper spray. This turned a peaceful protest into an eruption of violence because the company over stepped their bounds by plowing through sacred ground. Heim shows his bias a bit by speaking in sympathy to the native americans protesting the pipeline and not trying to justify the pipeline or the actions of the company sponsoring the pipeline's construction. Heim uses logos effectively by talking about the issues of the pipeline and the long term environmental effects it will have. He also appeals to the native americans and shows sympathy to them and their struggle of protesting this environmental atrocity.

This helps Blakeman's case. showing that he knows what he is talking about. He may be extremely biased but he has facts.

Again Blakeman hurts his ethos by referring to facts about the environment and the environmental damage that the DAPL could potentially deal. He refers to the environmental facts as 'extortion' bringing out his bias strongly leaving no leniency towards the liberal point of view or even respectfully talking about the peaceful protesters in a nice way.

Blakeman, Bradley A. "Why we must build the Dakota Access pipeline Now." The Hill. 9 Sept. 2016. Web. 11 Oct. 2016.

Blakeman makes his thesis statement across multiple paragraphs, but it is very clear. He argues that this DAPL will allow for cheaper transport of crude oil to the rest of america, it will allow easier transport, it will create over 8,000 jobs, and it will generate $129 million to property and income taxes. This is a strong argument showing the large economic benefit to this major construction project taking place. This heavy concern for money and economics shows that the author is more of a right leaning author, but he makes a strong argument for his position on the construction of this pipeline. It is true, the construction would generate 8000 plus jobs helping out those who are not currently employed. Also the easier transport of crude oil means less involvement in the middle east and trying to transport from there. The author keeps his conservative pose in this article; he doesn't kindly address the opposing side but instead calls them 'A handful of environmental rabble-rousers with a radical agenda...' This hurts his ethos a bit because he doesn't express that he understands their side of the argument, instead he name calls them and basically says they are uneducated on the issue. Not referring to the other side discredits him and makes his bias heavily shown.

Over a thousand miles of pipeline seems like a bit of overkill. Let alone that there is a possibility that it can falter or fail. If this pipeline was constructed then proceeded to bust, the environmental impact that would take place would be so horrible. land would be ruined contributing to more global warming, ridiculous amounts of animals would be displaced from their homes because of it. Doesn't really seem worth it.

Meador shows the publics view on this. The public doesn't want this because it allows the owners of the pipeline to obtain as much land as the want/need for the pipeline. This is an issue for the environment in the case of public space. If the pipeline crosses through a large greenbelt, the greenbelt land will be purchased and destroyed for the purpose of moving this non-renewable fossil fuel across America. Meador has a clear liberal view on this topic but stands tot make good points about the underlying and even the more blatant issues that are coming along with this new development.

This statement expresses the issues with putting this pipeline in. It would be a huge environmental hazard. Causing an increase in the chance for spills, and increasing global warming existentially.

Meador talks about the issue of the National Environmental Policy Act and how until recently the requirement was met. Now it it no longer met. NEPA requires that all executive federal agencies prepare environmental assessments and environmental impact statements. These reports state the potential environmental effects of proposed federal agency actions.

"Why the Dakota Access pipeline fight may be a turning point in U.S. environmental politics" MinnPost. 16 Sept. 2016. Web. 11 Oct. 2016. Meador speaks to the fact of the DAPL fight is a turning point in our environmental politics. It is good to look at an article that looks at more than the drama of the protests and the hired muscle.

I for some reason couldn't annotate on the page that the DAPL article was on. The conservative article is very straight forward, but it is very closed off. IT only talks about the anger of "environmentalists" and the approval of the pipeline. Both articles are very biased towards their respective sides for obvious reasons.

Going through these sights I find it is really easy to find reports about DAPL and the protests of it in the Liberal news sources. On the other hand looking through the Conservative news sources there was none besides 1 talking about the initial introduction of the DAPL. So there is immediately an issue. It seems like the conservative news source doesn't want people to know about the protests and the possible stopping of the DAPL.

I definitely believe this is the claim of the article. It is arguable, and straight forward. The author does well to stick by this claim throughout this article, not changing, altering, or shifting her claim.

This article is a good, well written, scholarly article. McMurty does well at staying unbiased while she's reviewing Serial. She stays by her claim very well and she uses good details and evidence to support her claim.

I definitely agree with this. Koenig definitely misleads us in the podcast about Jay. She uses many things to make him sound shady or wrong in what he was doing. She sort of throws Jay under the bus immediately in the season of the podcast. This false portrayal shows how biased towards Adnan Koenig is. Koenig seems to 'whitewash' Adnan, she wants us to think that he is innocent and she does so strongly by throwing Jay under the bus.

I feel like this bit here does in fact damage Koenig's ethos. The writer of this article makes a good point about saying it's "such a teenage girl's diary." I understand what Koenig is trying to convey, but at the surface of it, just looking at the statement it seems rather gamey. It seems like Koenig is trying to make it seem like Hae is not an ordinary teenage girl. Now I do feel this writer does push the bounds a little bit by saying that Koenig has a racial bias, but the point is arguable from each side.

Here seems rather dodgy of Adnan to say this. It is almost and admission of guilt. One does not and would not avoid the cops, unless you've done something noteworthy for the cops to try and catch you. It is kinda an appeal to ethos even though its moving in the opposite direction. Adnan is showing little to no ethics here making him seem suspicious.

This is horrible to think that these random bystanders are suffering due to these "bombies" and other bombs littering the Laotian landscape. Now, thankfully, america decides to step in and offer the help they should have received long ago.

I feel this is important because of the terror that took place in Vietnam and Laos; especially the fact that Laos wasn't trying to put themselves into the war. America during the time of war ruined the landscape of Vietnam and Laos due the extraneous amount of Napalm and Agent Orange used to clear troops and foliage.

redz12244