A drastic example of this is the differences in the report about a boy who "attacked" his teacher with a baseball bat on the news broadcasts on Wed 14th. On GWN, the details of the actual violent act were left out, while the reason, outcome and the appearance of the child in question were selected. The photo clearly showed the child's darker skin pigment, while blurring his face. On the other hand, ABC mainly ignored the motivation, the outcome of the incident, and the appearance of the boy, focusing in the details of the event. The reports of the attack were very different, with GWN reporting it as the child "hit the teacher" with the baseball bat, while the ABC reported it as "threw the bat and it hit the teacher on the arm". These different reports have a huge impact on the impressions the viewer forms of the incident. While GWN could be criticized for "dramatizing" the incident, and selecting irrelevant information in an attempt to promote racist thoughts, the ABC broadcast could be equally criticized for ignoring the motivation of the child, the outcome, and focusing too much on the "exciting details" of the incident, even though the information used was probably less embellished. The impressions I formed in regards to the two stations were vastly different. The GWN broadcast made the incident into a story by setting the scene by discussing his motivation, embellishing the event, then concluding with the "punishment" due to the child. It gave me a very sensational view of the incident, and made me think the boy was certain nothing short of a juvenile delinquent. The ABC broadcast gave less build-up, and little resolution, and a different version of the events, leaving me to wonder if the boy is indeed a delinquent, or only responsible for losing his temper at the teacher.
In both broadcasts emphasis was placed on different parts of certain stories. By emphasising certain points of the argument, it suggests to the viewer that they should give that point more credence, or on the other hand, disdain.