FOX ends the article by saying the more exciting part of the mission won't be here for a while. This was most likely done to attempt to make the audience annoyed and angry that the probe has reached its destination and yet NASA isn't doing anything of huge importance with it for another month or so. Both articles achieve what they are attempting to do. CNN hypes the news and makes the mission sound incredibly important and worthy of the money and effort. FOX downplays the exact same news, making it sound unimportant at all, and not worthy of the money and effort. Both of these articles achieve their purpose, and it is up to the reader to decide which article fits their opinions more.

This piece of information was left out of CNN's article, which makes sense. By turning off the instrumentation, NASA is gaining no information. This would be argued as a waste. CNN is not trying to make this argument, so they left that piece of information out. FOX, however, nearly ends their incredibly short article with it. It leaves that feeling of waste of time and money in the audiences mind.

The audience of both articles appear to be the same. They are attempting to reach the general public about this mission. However, the reasoning are direct opposites. CNN is attempting to excite the audience. FOX is attempting to make the the news sound bland and unnecessary. FOX is writing in short snippets that sound very unenthusiastic.

The first thing that stands out is the author does not attempt to build the excitement of the mission like CNN did. Conservatives tend to believe in smaller government. It makes sense that they would not try to make NASA, a government organization, sound exciting and worthy of support.

My conservative news outlet was FOX news.

As mentioned above, liberals tend to support government a lot more than conservatives. Since CNN is a liberal media outlet, they are making NASA appear to be on the average citizen's side. The wording the author uses makes it sound as if NASA is doing this mission purely for the benefit of the public. Although I would agree that the images being posted are for the public, the mission itself is definitely for the science community.

CNN is using quotes from highly credential sources in order to lend more importance to the mission.

This article makes the discovery sound very exciting. They talk about the success of the mission and how those involved are very excited with what they are finding. Liberals tend to want bigger government. Since NASA is a government run group, it makes sense that they are going to paint NASA in as bright a light as they can, to get the audience excited over the news and to support NASA.

I used CNN for my liberal news source. I chose to focus on the most recent news from NASA, as it is what started my interest in the subject.

The article ends by stating that NASA plans on continuing their research and projects. They end it on a hopeful note, and make the audience want to join them on their adventures. This article strikes me as a message to the nation that we need to continue to support NASA. They make the case that what they are doing is important and needs the backing of as many people as possible. The fact that they talk mainly about the exciting missions that they are working on, and not the more standard missions also in the works, supports this idea.

There are other benefits to backing NASA, as they mention here. By demonstrating how what they are doing can help with environmental issues, more people may support their research. This may allow more of the audience to back them in the hopes of making our lives better in the immediate future.

NASA then explains that they are taking the steps they can in order to help out with issues people have had with them. They are working with private companies and other nations in order to bolster resources. The underlying message is that by teaming up with othe groups, they will not need as much money to reach their goals.

The article then explains why we do not have the exciting missions currently that we like to think of when space exploration comes up. We currently do not know enough to send astronauts off to other places safely. In order to get there, NASA needs to to more research as to just how to get there, and how to handle the many different types of situations that might arise. I think NASA is essentially telling people to be patient with them, and that what they are doing now may seem unimportant, but that it is necessary in order to take the next step.

The first goal of NASA is indicated as the type of mission that most people think about when they think space exploration; astronauts going to far off places. This will keep the audiences attention, as it is the hook for the article.

The article opens up with a quote from the NASA administrator, Charles Bolden,who states NASA's mission statement. This helps solidify where NASA is coming from and gets the audience's attention.

"What's Next for NASA?"NASA. 3 Sept. 2013. Web. 10 July. 2016

This article is from NASA itself, detailing their ongoing and future plans for their projects. This has been written not only to keep the audience informed of what is happening and where their money is going, but also to pitch ideas that may get them more support for their endeavors. Although it is a government agency, NASA sometimes need to act like a business. One thing businesses need to do to gain investors is to pitch their ideas. For this reason, the article was written. It could be argued either way whether or not this is a credible source. I think its credible, but not scholarly. It comes from NASA and is being edited regularly by NASA administrators. These are experts in the field, which means the people should be believed. However, there are no outside sources or information being used. It is strictly stating plans for the agency's future.

Article is ended very similarly to the current Juno article I included earlier. NASA helps create a demand for scientists of diverse backgrounds in order to further advance capabilities. By doing so, more jobs are made possible, which we sorely need. This is also beneficial because it shows a specific reason that has stayed the same throughout the decades. This gives credence that benefits from the mid 1900's are the same as today. This allows us to safely argue that the benefits presented in this old article are still prevalent to today.

This is an argument against NASA that is somewhat prevalent to our current situation. In times of war, other groups, such as the military, do more spending and boost the economy more. Since we are dealing with homeland terrorism and ISIS, it could be argued that a larger military would boost the economy more than NASA would.

The article explains that NASA is responsible for the United States' satellites that are in orbit. Reading the surrounding text, it is revealed that this means things such as our meteorological satellites, which help us predict the weather. This is an incredibly important thing we use in our daily lives, especially with disaster prevention. It is all thanks to NASA. This is another piece of evidence that can be used to show the importance of NASA, and how it goes beyond the space exploration that most Americans know them for.

As NASA expanded its capabilities, it began to reach for further goals, which demand higher technology. They would therefore need to purchase the highest end products available, which would also help to stimulate the economy.

Very specific example of where NASA allowed considerable growth for the economy. It helped create a booming industry that allowed the eventual creation of a large portion of the technology that we use today, such as our phones, computers, televisions, etc.

This appears to be an older paper as well. Based off its content, it appears that it was published around the 70's or 80's. However, the information given is still factual and can be used to support current times. The Midwest Research Institute studied the effects that NASA seemed to have on the economy. As seen, the MRI indicated that NASA had turned a massive profit for the economy. Technological advancement groups create products or develop techniques that can advance civilization. When this happens, our capabilities increase. NASA has demonstrated that it created this type of advancement. For every dollar that they had been given, they were able to create advancement that allowed twice as much money to benefit the economy within a decade.

Schnee, Jerome. "The Economic Impacts of the U.S. Space Program." NASA. Web. 10 July. 2016.

This is a detailed account as to how NASA and their projects have impacted the United States. It is a highly credible source, written by a government agency, and published by NASA itself. Jerome is degree backed through Rutgers University, and the article he has written is credible, as shown by the plethora of bibliography entries on the article itself. The only possible case against credibility is the lack of a publication date. However, since this appears to be a database entry, it is understandable why there is not a publication date. As for the audience, this article is most likely for those concerned with budgeting NASA, as well as government transparency.

Taylor then balances this out by talking about European nations. He explains that the spending in this part of the world is evening out and not increasing year afer year. If anything, it could be dropping. Since these are established countries, the United States could go this way as well, and any increased spending could go to places like NASA. There are many factors that could go into the spending for the United States military and defense. If the threat level stays the same or decreases, there may not be a need to cut NASA's funds, and may even make it possible for them to gain more funding. If the opposite proves true, NASA may in fact need to be cut back in order to allow the increased spending.

This could be an argument against NASA. If other countries begin to spend more, the United States may be inclined to do the same. The spending is so high already that the U.S. may decide to cut other areas. This could include NASA

Further evidence to support the thought that if cuts are to be made, it should be in the military spending. The United States spends half a trillion dollars on its military, which is more than one third the amount of the entire world. However, it could be argued that quality is more important than quantity. Other countries that gain the edge technologically would be able to do more, despite the fact that they do not have as much financial backing. If the United States focused their thinking to this outcome, they could cut cost while keeping the military edge we have established.

At this point, it may not be very apparent as to why I have chosen this article to discuss spending on space exploration. The reasoning is to discuss another stakeholder viewpoint on the issue. The amount of money that the government allows NASA is incredibly small in comparison to how much is spent on other areas such as military expenditures. This page shows that science (such as NASA) and military both fall under discretionary spending. The military is given so much more money than NASA. Therefore, it could be argued that if the government wanted to cut costs, they should focus on cutting the expenses used for the military instead of NASA.

This article is reporting information released from the IISS. This source is incredibly credible, to the point that it helps run international summits. This proves that the information being received is incredibly accurate and will be very informative and factual.

Multiple authors give crediblity.Adam Taylor is a professional writer and focuses on foreign affairs, which gives him large credibility to him penning an article about global spending on defense.

Laris Karklis is more of an illustrator, providing graphs and pictures to represent data being discussed.

The Washington Post is a very credible source for news. They are well known, and cover a plethora of topics, as well as maintaining a high standard of professionalism.

Taylor, Adam, and Karklis, Laris. "This Remarkable Chart Shows How U.S. Defense Spending Dwarfs the Rest of the World." The Washington Post. 9 Feb. 2016 Web. 10 Jul. 2016.

This article states very specifically that is talks about how the United States spends more money on its defense and military than any other country in the world. Its audience is most likely those concerned with where their tax money is going. It also is to show those interested in more global comparisons just where the United States ranks in terms of spending.

Space X ends the article by describing a third and final product, the Grasshopper. I believe Space X was wise to end the article this way. Although this rocket did not reach as high a distance, the composition of the rocket sounds a lot more impressive. They explain that the Grasshopper was a larger vehicle .They also explain that it was a better comparison to the type of rocket that NASA would use. It contains an engine, and "support structure" on top of the rocket, which makes it appear to be more of the type of craft we think of when talking about NASA. By doing so, Space X makes their product appear to be more of the complete package. They describe only the successes they had with the Grasshopper, in an effort to appease their possible customers.

As stated previously, this is not an article that could be considered a scholarly article. IT is mostly a large product pitch to people interested in space exploration. They do use facts, and it is accurate information as it is coming from the people in charge of the rockets, but it is biased. However, it shows that one possible solution to funding NASA as much as we do is to privatize part of the work, or at least find a way to reuse parts of the missions to reduce cost.

Space X now shows some successful attempts, to prove that they will reach their goal. They talk about a second product they have that uses a different form of lander. By doing so, they show that there is more than one option for these forms of rockets. They attempt to make the distance sound more impressive, as saying 1000 meters is a lot more impressive sounding than a single kilometer.

Space X does a really good job of explaining its advancements and how it is going about creating the rocket. They describe how they first made rockets that could get to space, then began working on making those that could be landed properly. Space X explains their first attempt made it to the target, but crashed into it instead of landing. However, they actually never say that they failed, just that it "landed hard". This makes it sound as if they were successful, when they actually were not. They do the same when explaining the second failed attempt. By saying that it was extreme weather that caused the failure, they are stating it was not their fault. This is an excellent business technique as it still makes it sound as if their product will work as it has been designed to do.

Space X states that they are working on creating the rocket that is designed to be used over and over again. They do state that they have not fully created the rocket yet, but are in the process of doing so. This is to ensure their possible customers that the product is being created and not to search for other possibilities while it is being created.

Space X uses one of the best ways to show the cost effectiveness of their product that I can ever seen. They describe that the cost of a commercial airliner is about the same as the rocket for a space-destined vehicle. However, the commercial airliner is used thousands of times before going out of service, while the rocket is only used once. By stating this, the audience can see that the cost effectiveness is so much better if the rocket can become reusable. This is where Space X's product would come in.

The wording used is very important. It does not attempt to supply the belief as a fact. It is simply stating that this is what the company as a whole believes. However, Space X also repeats the benefit to its product, which makes sure that this is clear in the audiences mind. One of the biggest issues people have with NASA is that their money is being taxed to fund them. By offering a technology that will reduce those costs, your average citizen may be more supporting if they believe that they will not have to pay as much for the program.

This is a quote from Elon Musk. Musk is the founder and owner of the Space X company. It is a very important quote because it does several things. It describes the main mission of space X that is currently going on. By doing so, we know exactly where the company is coming from. It also talks about the benefit of what it is working on, most importantly the cost cutting it could do to the space program. It also clearly demonstrates the article's audience. The audience are those interested in the product of reusable rockets who may want to purchase the technology, as well as educating the public to what the product means to the industry.

"Reusiability: The Key To Making Human Life Multi-Planetary." Space X. 10 June. 2015 Web. 10 July. 2016.

The fist thing that must be said is that this article is not fully scholarly. It is informative, but biased. It does not have a specific author and it comes from a company that is attempting to sell a product. However, there is an incredibly important reason for using this article; it supplies a possible solution to the funding of NASA. As a result, it is a different stakeholder position from the previous article.

Finally, Grady finishes her article with establishing another benefit to the mission that might get more people on board with funding NASA. She states that there is room for high end jobs, to help with unemployment. She also makes special mention that female engineers are wanted, that may appeal to the female demographics as well.

Grady does several things here. One of the main arguments against funding for NASA is that people do not see probes circling other planets of important. Sending Neil Armstrong to the Moon was impressive and exciting, but this wasn't. However, she stands as a voice for her field, and is attempting to show her audience that this is just as important of a mission.

Grady mentions the Voyager missions. This shows that the mission is complementing previous mission information, showing the cost of the mission isn't just to tread old ground. By doing so, Grady is building a case that the money is truly being spent to gain and improve our information on the planet of Jupiter.

Grady is stating the importance of this mission. The reason this is important is because it covers one of the stakeholder positions that will be covered in my paper. It describes the valuable information that NASA and the space exploration community will gain from this mission. By explaining that the mission will give more information than any of the previous explorations to Jupiter so far, it is justifying why the cost of this mission is important. This will in turn show that funding towards space programs is being used responsibly and that the money is not being wasted on treading old ground.

Grady is now getting to the heart of the article. She writes very technically and factual from her on out. It is unbiased as there is no opinion being thrown in. She describes some of the many issues that surround the mission and how much money it has cost to get to the point it is today.

She now brings the viewer back to the main purpose of the article; to talk about the Juno mission. She does so by expressly stating what the mission is.

Grady attempting to further connect with her audience, people interested and invested in space exploration, by talking about something other than the mission. she refers to Independence Day, a popular sci-fi action movie that also happens to refrence the day the real life mission of Juno became successful.

Grady does several things with this statement. First, she adds to her credibility for reporting on this topic. By working on a mission similar to this one, she is showing that she has an insider's view on missions such as this, instead of being purely an outsider. She also establishes emotion into the article by going into more detail into the excitement that goes on within these missions, and how she had a genuine emotion to the announcement and reaction of the mission.

Grady starts the actual article by talking about just how impressive the Juno mission is in of itself. The fact that the success of the mission was an exciting announcement to the entire world speaks volumes as to how impressive this mission has become.

Article gives a brief biography of who the author is, and points to a leader in the field, showing a reputable and scholarly source. Open University is an accredited university that offers online schooling for European countries, verifying the author is in fact a professor.

Grady, Monica. "How Nasa's Juno Jupiter probe could be about to solve the solar system's biggest mystery of all." The Telegraph. 10 July. 2016. Web. 10 July. 2016.

Grady uses a title that helps support her overall point of this paper. This mission is incredibly important for NASA, as well as our understanding of the solar system that Earth inhabits.

Taking a direct quote from the "Republican Hawk" himself, it could be argued that this article is incredibly credible. However, the only part of this article that seems to be credible is the quotes themselves, since they come from the person involved. The explanation and wording between quotes are more opinionated and have a mild agenda. If further research were to be found, it would be best to find opposing sides to the argument in order to balance out the current opinion. However, I do not believe this article on its own should be considered fully credible.

This quote shows that the writer is at least partially biased against Donald Trump. After all, Trump is in fact the republican nominee, no matter if you support him or not. Therefore, it would be logical that other republicans were supporting him.

This article deals with a future nomination for president. SInce this will effect the United States,as well as a the world, this is a very important topic to discuss, and one that will hvae continuing coverage during the months to come, in addition to the things that have come up so far. However, as with all politics, it is very hard to find truly credible coverage of such a topic, as this is obviously an opinion piece.

This is yet another credible article. Not only is it from a well known news outlet, but there are also direct quotes throughout from the heads of NASA's mission. This gives first person accounts, and shows that this article is legitimate.

This further shows that there will be further information on later dates, but we will most likely not have the entirety of it for two full years. In additon, there is a possibility that the mission will fail, and all possible information will not actually surface.

Since NASA is undergoing a mission to analyze Jupiter, it is very likely that there will be a way to find more information on this topic. Since it is a space mission, and my prior knowledge to these sorts of missions, it is not very likely that all of the information will come in soon. Instead, it will be given out on semi-regular updates throughout the weeks and months to come.

Since eyewitnesses of the incident are used in this article, it is very likely to be credible and accurate.

I chose this article because the article really caught my eye with the title. Since this is a single incident report, it is very unlikely to find additional evidence on this story. There may be other news sites that cover it, but that is all that will be found.

To wrap up the episode, Koenig uses Adnan and his experiences with the system to talk about how the system is not as just as people think it is.He explains that he believed the truly innocent would be found so, and that only the real guilty people would claim so. After the fact, he realizes that this is not the case. Sometimes there is no way to prove your innocence, and that taking the guilty plea might actually save you from a harsher sentence. This really speaks to how distraught the supposed justice system is. It wraps up this episode perfectly. That no matter how hard you try not to have prejeduce, and to have the truth speak for itself, this is not how the real world works. The world is not fair, and sometimes we must do things we do not want, such as taking a plea even if you didn't do it, in order to minimize damage done.

Koenig places this piece of evidence in very well. It strong, but mostly because she makes it apparent that it was there, but it wasn't the underlying cause of Adnan's conviction. She describes multiple instances where people just make assumptions about Adnan's inheritance. There are a few cases of more extreme prejudice, but she describes how those accusations are thwarted very quickly. It helps prove that no matter how hard people may or may not try, we all have ideas and assumptions about certain people or groups.

This is a stronger piece of evidence that supports Koenig's idea that Adnan was not properly defended. His defense attorney, the person that is trying to convince the jury tha the is innocent, seemed off. The remainder discusses how Cristina was very different during this trial and afterwords. She would be demanding money, would not jump on things she should, and in general lacked the abilities her reputation claimed she had. Had she been at her A game and not off, the trial may have ended a lot differently for Adnan.

This episode is all about Koenig reviewing what happened in the trial, and everything that could have or did affect the outcome of the trial. Adnan's mother was talking about how she believed Adnan was targeted simply because of his hesitance. This is a more weak piece of evidence. Not only does Koenig not buy this explanation, but the judge does not either. Throughout this episode, the judge is shown as being very wary about any biases. He would not have allowed Adnan to be tried simply because of how he was raised.

This article is essentially just using pieces of information from a plethora of other sites, and is not using many first person accounts directly, leading to a questionable article. However, it does present the knowledge that this topic is covered extensively and could be easily researched further.

This article is classified as a blog, which tends to be an opinion piece. It's also from a religious backed company, and one that I have had factual errors on in previous usage of the site. As a result of these three reasons, I do not feel this is a very credible source.

This article is important because it details a real world problem that is affecting people around the globe financially. My outside knowledge knows that it negatively impacted our stock market in a tremendous way.

This very simple link within the article shows other places we could go to find more information on driverless cars, proving there is an areas for further study of the topic.

By being published in a journal dedicated to science, it appears to be credible. Also, it is an article on study findings, not necessarily an opinion piece.

This describes the social dilemma that people are finding with self driving cars. They want the cars to save as many lives as possible, but do not want to the car to endanger them in the process. IT shows that the audience is the general public and those planning on using these cars.

Another interesting article, this one dealing with social ideas and advanced technology.

This quote does two things. It starts off by showing the audience. Chocolate consumers may be impacted by this change, and will have to determine if they like it. It also shows a way to find more information. With further research being done, it is very likely to have more stories at a later date, as well as previously referencing that there was a published paper over the findings, which could give more detailed information.

Unfortunately, it appears that the reasoning behind this research is not simply to make chocolate healthier, but to also make sure that production is kept at its standard rates.

Having university researchers show the findings definitely gives a credibility to the work, as it is most likely an unbiased source for information.

This is an interesting article for several reasons; I like science, and making food healthier is arguably a very important step we need to take.

Koenig uses words that paint Jay in a bad light. Trying to make him sound untrustworthy. The text around this particular quote talks about how he wasn't like the rest of the people around him, how he did not totally fit in with the others. Makes him out to be an outcast, which could lead some people to believe he does in fact have something to gain.

Cristina Gutierrez, Adnan's defense attorney, clearing up that Jay was admitting to not telling the police everything he knew, and for lying. This logos supports Koenig's thesis well in that it is direct evidence, from Jay, stating that he never fully told the truth. This is a strong support of Koenig's claim.

This is Koenig's thesis for the episode. Up until this point, she has not believed Jay and always was suspicious of him. This episode focused on trying to flesh out Jay and determine just what could convince others that he was not fully truthful.

By opening up each episode with this statement, or ones similar to it, Koenig demonstrates that this is a more professional podcast. It has backing from companies. It tells who the author is (Koenig) and gives a sense of authority. This ethos appeals to the audience in that this person's words should be held to a higher regard and listened to.

A juror is describing to Koenig just why she believed Jay. She feels that the only reason that Jay would not be lying is that he has nothing to gain from it. She thought he was still going to jail himself, and had no reason to blame Adnan except for seeing the murderer going to jail. Looking at it through the juror's perspective, this is a good demonstration of logos. She is using her believed fact that Jay has not reason to lie to justify him blaming Adnan. Looking at this same idea from Jay, he has shown a very particular type of pathos, appealing to emotion. He has this juror thoroughly convinced that he is saying what he is saying out of the goodness of his heart, because he is a kid that got into trouble and is taking responsibility. Jay has this juror feeling for him, believing in his character.

If Koenig could prove that Mr. S knew about the body, then she could start to look for who told him where the body was. This could possibly lead to proving Adnad's innocence. The revelation would help prove the underlying thesis of this series; that Adnan is actually not guilty of the murder.

Mr. S is quoted as saying he was the one that found the body in Leakin Park. No where before or after this statement does he claim to have extra knowledge on the death of Hae. He has, at this time, provided nothing of note that would accuse Adnan of killing his ex-girlfriend. So why does Koenig spend an entire episode of her podcast, some thirty minutes long, analyzing every little detail of Mr. S's portion of the story, if she is not attempting to connect the story to Adnan's accusation of murder?

This further proves the point that Koenig was seeking out some evidence to support Mr. S and his knowledge of Hae's body. "her" and "she" refer to the sister in law of Mr. S. Would a casual reporter stop to reach out to a sister in law of a relatively minor character, who offered little to the overall story, if she was not trying to prove something?

Koenig's thesis on this episode is that Mr. S did not just stumble across Hae's body, but was rather looking for it. By looking for a connection between Adnan, Hae, or Jay and Mr. S, she can prove this theory.

Sam Ritter, spritter