In the past month, The New York Times and Le Monde published articles regarding France's opinions on the NSA surveillance scandal. I found The New York Times article to be a little more fair and balanced in that it explored the problems resulting from the NSA surveillance scandal and the steps the United States government is taking to resolve the problem. Contrarily, I found the article published in Le Monde to be more of an attack on the NSA and the United States government. I find that these factors of fairness and balance affect the frame of the articles. The frames of the articles were obviously developed to suit the differing intentions of the two writers. Both articles provided expert sources through United States and French government officials.
Given the situations the United States and France were in after the surveillance scandal, it is expected that the articles would be covered differently. The New York Times wrote the article to not only discuss the French government's response to the NSA surveillance scandal, but also to demonstrate how the United States government intended to deal with these damaged relations. Contrarily, the article in Le Monde looked solely to condemn the NSAs actions as acts of "espionage." Ultimately I trust The New York Times version over the one in Le Monde, not only because of the familiarity I have with the source but also due to the greater emphasis on fairness and balance.