Although both articles come from the same company stark differences can be seen within each one, this also further includes the similarities of the two. Each article explains some sort of, not extremely major, but still an important issue dealing with the current modern-day workings of technology. The first article, titled “Russia’s New Nuclear Missiles Squeeze Response Time” tells of the nuclear capabilities of Russia’s arsenal, the focus being its newest missile which is said to bypass basic air defense systems. The second article, titled “An Innovative Robotic Exosuit Boosts both Walking and Running” discusses a new bipedal project which boosts the ability of the user to withstand basic human flaws.
The two articles relate on a more technological scale as both articles discuss innovations in human ability, this includes both good and bad intentions. For the most part it is easy to figure out which of the two articles is leaning towards either side. With the first article being more in favor of a bad intention with the author’s usage of words hinting towards a sort of bias. Yet this is normal in most cases when it relates to anything of foreign interest, specifically any eastern countries it is seen in a negative connotation to discuss their benefits for their citizens. The rocket stated in the article is only of benefit for Russia and is not that much of a benefit for its neighboring countries. This is stated when the author quotes Jeffrey Lewis, a nuclear policy expert and professor at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies in Monterey, Calif. “The Russians really hate missile defense… They really don’t like the possibility that they might be outmatched technologically. So there’s a whole battery of Russian programs—from the doomsday torpedoes, to nuclear-powered cruise missiles, to hypersonic reentry vehicles, to anti-satellite weapons.”
The second article leaves us with some more hopeful information, one of which is more for the benefit of our community than just ourselves. The idea of an “exosuit” can sound more like something out of a science fiction novel rather than something within our reality. This is not until recent as the author states, “Until recently, no exosuit design had succeeded in reducing the amount of energy required for both types of motion. Earlier generations of such suits, also known as wearable robots, had stumbled in that challenge because of the different biomechanical actions required for walking versus running. Now researchers have developed a soft device that can automatically detect whether the wearer is walking or running and provide the appropriate assistance for either movement.” As astonishing as this sounds, many would still question what the purpose of such an expensive piece of equipment is. The answer lies, not surprisingly, within the military, as their rush for higher tech to become more relevant their technology similarly spreads within the public mass for those of unfortunate events: “That result could benefit anyone who needs to travel quickly across long distances on foot: rescue workers searching a large disaster area, U.S. Army soldiers or Marines on the march, or even hikers out for fun. It could also provide steady medical assistance to people with illnesses or injuries that restrict walking.” (Hsu).
What is the difference between these two articles? The question is asked since the two although from the same research groups they both have one sperate thing that is easily identified from one another. That detail is tone; the tone of an article is what changes it from depressing news to uplifting hope for the future. The tone of an article: how it’s paced, the use of word choice, specific details exemplified and opened up so it may incline further investigation. Many of these tricks used by media outlets are very well known and seen in every sorce of media in the current market. The reasons to having this state is due to different view points such as a way to improve fear tactics: “Still, a radiation-spewing cruise missile with unlimited range is not Russia’s only frightening new weapon. It is also testing the RS-28 Sarmat, a liquid-fueled ICBM designed to brute-force its way through U.S. missile defense systems. The missile is fast, huge—119 feet tall with a weight of more than 220 tons—and full of weapons: It carries a 10-ton payload, big enough to include 24 separate nuclear-tipped Avangard hypersonic glide vehicles”. Word choice is used here to show a view point, the example here is when the author uses the phrase “radiation-spewing” to indicate the hazard that the missiles are even without being fired.
Not only is it a fear tactic, but it is also used as a way to diminish fear; this is seen when the author quotes “However, not everyone is fretting about high-speed glide vehicles. “I’m not so impressed by those,” Lewis says. He says the vehicles themselves, once released, will no longer be traveling at hypersonic speeds (although other experts disagree with this assessment). “The missile is gliding, so it actually slows down quite a bit and makes a much better target [than traditional ICBMs] for missiles defenses,” Lewis says. The vehicle could supposedly move to evade a defense system, but Lewis remains unconvinced. “It’s great that it can maneuver so that it doesn’t come into the range of missile defenses. But if it does, it’s going to be a much brighter target because it’s moving more slowly and it’ll be superhot,” he says. “The hypersonic gliders people are talking about actually represent slower reentry than what currently exists.”
In conclusion to all of this, the articles presented here have opened my mind to greater signs of diversion, or misdirection with the content of an article. Both the articles contain signs of tones, although both are different from one another they still display a point in a certain light specific to their ideals.