1. Blog post title: Style: At the end of part 4, Andy Mulligan uses newspaper stories to reveal further information about senator Zapanta and the mystery. What information is revealed? Do all of the papers share the same view? How is this effective way to reveal the story?

Andy Mulligan uses newspaper articles to reveal further information about senator Zapanta and the mystery. All the newspaper articles have different information. The first newspaper story tells us that Zapanta did not steal any money and it was a member of the senator’s domestic staff. But the second article is different because it tells us bad things he did like

 “He also made famous by a dramatic poster campaign aimed at the illiterate, featuring laughing orphans holding placards that spelled out his name – the children received no fee for their services.”

The third article tells us that why was ten million dollars doing in the Senator’s house? This article tells us that Senator was hiding something and he got all that money unofficial. I think this article is the article that is the most less bias, because it doesn’t really say that he didn’t do anything wrong or correct it just asks what were all the money doing in his house?

The fourth article is very bias because it only says that Vice-president Senator is a bad man that keeps millions of dollars of cash in his home, suggests that he is part of a corrupt other world – and should not be re-elected, but a new, better person named Charuvi Adarme should be elected.