The flooding in Pakistan from this year started in June and continued into July, this raises the question as to why did the government take so long to declare a national emergency. Some could interpret this is as a weakness for Pakistan since every nation expects other's governments are to provide and protect the people under every circumstance by themselves. So if one nation reaches out for help then they are seen as weak since they can't take care of their own problems. Weak in terms of financially, structurally and their responsibilities.

This statement goes beyond its surface meaning by how the people have taken action to help others. Some can see this as a way that the people are helping others through the power from their god. Others can see this as a way for people to step up to help others since their god has not.

This piece of information can provoke one to think that this kind of behavior between nations can cut ties with their alliance. This scenario beings out the truth of what nations say what they can do to help others versus what they actually do. This can build a bad reputation of a nation for future leaders trying to negotiate terms of cooperativeness and business deals.

This aspect of the flood is directed towards the government on how they deal with just the floods that has happened over time. Now taking this is a step farther, this reputation of dealing with floods poorly, other nations seen as allies could see this as a weakness for the nation of Pakistan. A weakness that could be leaked into the friendship between nations that trade, work and are allies with Pakistan. Since a portion of the land of Pakistan is destroyed now, the people was put into panic to where they couldn't uphold their deeds with proving food and other materials to trade and sell to other nations.

Taking this section a step farther, since this piece of evidence is shown through the floods of Pakistan, this should be taken as a precaution for other nations who deal with big flooding disasters from the arctic melting. Other nations can use this event as a way to make sure their flood protection polices and actions are up to date and can handle what Pakistan didn't.

This article does a great job of assessing the damage on a molecular spectrum. However, this article doesn't bring up the possibilities of new diseases and viruses coming from this disaster. If new diseases and infections emerge from this situation, it could sway technology's lead against preventing death from diseases and various illnesses.

This article takes a deeper dive into just talking about the destitution of the flood. Right here the article talks about how some of the land of Pakistan is destroyed, it talks about how farmers won't be able to provide as much food for others as they did before the flood. However, taking this piece a step forward, how will the destruction of land affect the food chain? Humans are not just the only ones who are affected from this flood. Plants, insects, bacteria and wild animals are all affected because of how they have to find new food sources and places to call home.

This statement is easy to interpret as how the people of Pakistan will have to change their viewpoint and see how their home is no longer a home because it is no longer inhabitable. This is going to affect most Pakistani's mentality about how they go about their security. Do they carry on their beliefs and traditions before the flood or will they change them now to be more careful about how they go about their life?

The news value here is conflict. Conflict that is between man and nature. This article points the finger at humans and blaming them for the increase in temperature around the world causing the climate change. Also, since the article makes Pakistan look more innocent by stating the tiny percentage of greenhouse gases it is responsible for; that means it looks for another country or countries to blame for being the major sources of greenhouse gases.

CDP describes itself as a "not-for-profit charity," that runs off of a significant amount of companies that runs the news on environmental impacts. To citizens, CDP seems to be a singular source that they can trust because of how it interprets a huge amount of various stories and events from thousands of independent companies. So, if something were to happen to CDP where it becomes untrustworthy, then people will have to find something else to put their trust in. Which will be hard because of how they were so attached to CDP. They will possibly go through similar stages like the stages when one deals with grief.

The news value here is impact. This article sets the tone for the rest of this article for the audience to feel sympathetic for the people were suffered from this event. This value is meant for audience to take away what causes these events to happen and how to stop them from being so tragic.

Not only will these physical items need to be rebuilt but also the reputation of this nation will need to be trusted again. All people of one nation relies on their government to take action to protect its people from any sort of threat. Over 33 million people were affected in some sort of way in Pakistan because of this year's flood. That is an upmost catastrophic beat down on the reputation of the Pakistani government. Meaning that the government will have to go out of its way to regain the trust of its people so that they don't riot or try to take over and form a new government.

This is a commonality throughout history. Where people of a nation under stress will rely on their religion. Their way of magical belief is stronger than relying on something that has proven itself to be faulty. Which is typically the people who have abused their power over a nation and its people.

This statement is how the people of Pakistan can come together to help one another since their own government isn't doing much to help. They already didn't do a good job making sure their dams could resist the flood to some aspect so that the damage wouldn't have been as severe as it is now. So, when they can't look up to their government to come help and save them, they turn to each other.

The news value seen here is conflict. Classical man versus nature. Humans are naturally inclined to learn more about a dispute because of how it goes against what they want. Humans love to hear a good comeback story as well.

The news value here is impact. The impact of affecting a mass amount of people. It could be seen as a validation for competition with other known monsoon related floods in Pakistan or other South to South East Asian countries.

A structural bias that appears here is how the reporter gives a lot of detailing towards the children who are victims of this incident rather than the perspectives of adults. This bias is to give a more emotional appeal for the audience because of how kids are associated with weakness and innocence. Around the world this is a valued belief by all human parents because of having a kid is what defines the role of protection for the parents. So, the representation of the adults in this flood are left out because it wouldn't be as appealing as using the perspectives of kids.

This is a conclusion that was formed from the previously stated facts that is backed up with evidence. From using the word, "will," is what proves that this statement is an inference. This conclusion is what brought out the characterization of this comparison/metaphor.

This article has little to no opinions within it's texts. Which means that this text is focusing on it's factual representation to make this source trustworthy and reliable of facts and details. The detailing from the evidence from this event is what proves the facts.

The signifier in this picture is the boy's face. His facial expression is emotionless which means he is probably in shock. Shock is a normal expression for a human to go through after they just experienced a cataclysmic event. This boy’s face is similar to the known, “Thousand Yard Stare,” where a person has an unfocused stare into an open distance which is just the camera’s lens. The meaning behind this symbol is to show what the effect has done to an innocent child. The significance of this is that the boy is traumatized to have this unconscious fear of flood and disaster that will be carried for the rest of his life. He will relate other similar events and feelings he comes across his whole life to this very moment.

Another aspect of Ideology affecting this flooding of Pakistan is the people’s belief in their religion. Most people in Pakistan are Islamic. Spiritually, the Islamic people are united with one another to help each other out. Islamic people do believe that Allah is all powerful. Now going back to the theme of context, most religions depict their god or gods as either all powerful or all good. There have been so many arguments on why a god from a specific religion would allow such a tragedy to strike innocent people.Some people inside and outside of Islam and Pakistan might contemplate their faith and ask their god or gods as to why they would allow this suffering to happen.

Ideology affects this flooding catastrophe in Pakistan in a sense of reliability. Reliability from the country’s government that the victims of the flood are associated with. In terms of the government, people seek protection from the government. The ideology here is that people who hear about this event believe that the government of Pakistan has failed to protect its citizens from this disaster. So this bond between the government and people of Pakistan seems to be unreliable because of the government not being able to prevent this tragedy from affecting over 33 million people.

The context of this event can be understood in the way of how the disaster was caused by using the specific word, “monsoon.” This word originates from Southeast Asia that happens every year. A monsoon is when the Southwest wind blows the water from May to September or from the Northeast region from October to April. People outside of South and Southeast Asia will see this overflow as an occasional tornado or hurricane from the patterns they pick up locally or nationally. However, people from South and Southeast Asia can predict events like this flood because they understood that this particular type of storm, a monsoon, was in the making because of its repetitive seasonal formation.

Here we see the reliability of this source. This is the margin of error from the results of the poll. This means that there is chance within the percent for the answers in the poll where the results can't always be true. Any kind or amount of a margin of error can sway what the audience can take away from the results. Meaning that if the percentages of each answer to a question are close to another, one side can't be fully proven correctly over the other. Even with a big population in the survey such as, "1,589", a margin of error of roughly +/- 2.5 percentage points can roughly add up to 39 people to change the question's results.

These questions seem to be worded in a fashionable manner where they are easy to comprehend by a wide range audience. This poll deals with politics and American's views on specific political figures. Where this topic might seem to be complex at first glance and use complicated wording that have specific meaning in the world of politics. However, these questions are straightforward with very little wording and offer the answers choices inside the question.

On every poll through this article, it clearly states the characteristics of the people who participated in the poll. This shows the audience who exactly and how the people were chosen for this poll so that they know that when this poll was conducted; there wasn't a favored group of individuals. This allows the audience to read the opinion of a wide range of people who are asked these questions. This helps eliminates bias on this poll so that it can be seen as a legitimate source.

The news value being represented here is conflict. This is an example of conflict because of how spokeswoman Natalie Edelstein spoke about how a piece of news could be interpreted one way that is false and has a hidden message that is meant to support only Republican propaganda.

The metaphor here is making something that is already dead characterized as dead but coming back to life from the word, "zombie." This metaphor can be seen as, "ideas are people," because of how zombie is a term when something (in societal norms, it mainly applies to humans) that died and comes back to life, which is what all organisms have. The entailments for this metaphor are that the article infer that the right-winged political papers are designed to go against the Democrats of Illinois. However, they use the work, "attack," in the title, now obviously the right-wing isn't going to literally bring violence and hurt the democrats, but they are targeting them since that this their opposition for the politcal parties.

This metaphor can be seen as an example of ideas are resources. This is because of the fact that this is similar to the saying, "new day, same stuff." Which means that something minuscule changes which, for the most part, are unnoticeable but seem to always change something else. Whereas something big on the other hand never changes. The entailments of this metaphor are the words, "old," and, "new." These words are what set up the reference for the common saying that is recognizable by the majority of a community. The entailment is meant to represent how everyday on Earth is meant to give humans something new to experience and something they already know.

This is a clear sign of a metaphor because of the apostrophes around the phrase "topping off." This can be seen as an example of the metaphor "ideas are fashions," because it is fashionable to say when something is piled up one might say, "to top it all off," or "at the very top," to signify that the top or very last item of something that is complex is very significant.

This can be seen as a conclusion from how the judge approached Allison trying to explain her actions that seemed false. This can't be seen as a fact, rather its a conclusion because it is the Judge's opinion based upon the information and evidence gathered against Allison. The final nail was Allison's unconvincing explaining for her actions.

This can be seen as a fact as the attorney describes a factual event that happens in the Isis terrorist unit where they decide who has power. Also, the name of the attorney appears to be Islamic. He has an authoritative reputation from being built by him dealing with many other cases of international crimes and proven to be trustworthy.

This piece of information is crucial because it gives an outside view of how people not immediately involved or related to Allison talk about who she is as a person. This is a conclusion for the audience to gather more evidence to support which side they take for this case.

Now this is a fact because the court recorded her and paraphrased what she said, however this is coming from the mother herself as a different perspective of the situation of her abusing her kids. This helps eliminate the potential of a bias in this story.

So the lawyers that are involved in the case decide that the abuse of Allison's kids are tied with her traveling from Kansas, Syria, Egypt and Libya. This is a conclusion because the traveling of multiple places can be seen as evidence for the abuse of the kids.

The kids of Allison openly came forward about the horrific treatment their mother did to them. They are victims and witnesses to the crimes their mother did. They told the judges and interviewers what she did through letters. This is a fact.

Here is where the audience reads that the Allison admitted that she did commit the crime and was not innocent. Now there is no evidence of an interrogation against to force herself to come out an state this. This is a fact.

This headline states the name of the woman in the title of the article and what happened in order for the court to give the maximum sentence for her crime. The audience can see that this woman does have rivalry and it is exploited to set the tone of this article. Which is conflict.

It is interesting to see what a nation will do to help its people from the chaos of war. In times of such chaos and destruction, nations seem to fall back on peaceful tactics to benefit themselves even if it means there is no bloodshed.

Once one nation appears to have contributed to a war raging on, its like a domino effect for other nations to follow. Almost similar to what happened in World War 1, once one nation went to war with another, an ally of one of the nations of the war joined in. History has a tendency to repeat itself.

This statement seems to be very important because it reveals more about what the Russians are specifically doing other than just attacking Ukraine that we have read almost this whole year just from the titles of news articles.

With this statement, this could raise awareness for people to suspect that foreign nation help to the nations involved with the war might lead to a bigger war than what is going on now. Whether it is just Iran or possibly more nations and even NATO could get involved.

From the beginning of the war, Russia was praised and thought as this high military power that could easily defeat Ukraine. However, Ukraine has been standing its ground and even pushed themselves into Russian territory. Now that being said, Russia is trying to answer their wake up call on how they can win the war.

From this it seems like Russia may have an opening to strike the capital of Ukraine. Even though the whole capital of Kyiv isn't without power, people will be suffering and in need of supplies. Without supplies, the citizens will panic and cause distress to the capital.