The differences between the writings of lawmakers and the reporters who take the law and spit it back out to the people of the nation are quite particular. 

Write the first section of your page here.For example The Supreme Court of The United States recently struck down a cap on overall political donations. In the actual ruling from the court the wording can be difficult to follow sometimes and uses different court cases from the past for background information that you must already have prior knowledge of.  The reporters writing however has taken all these pages of text and compressed it to the most important points and keep the sentences flowing. Journalist writings are usually much less formal than those of lawmakers and scholars in the political and legal field. Journalist also take all the political jargon and convert it into layman’s terms, essentially they simplify all of it and attempt pack all the useful information from the law or court case into as little space as possible for their article or two minute broadcasted story. Depending on the political affiliation of the journalist their report can reflect only one side of the story or only point out the good or the bad things in the new policy, law, or court case. That being said as far as scholarly writing goes in the field of political science it is all straightforward information without political bias.

Section headingEdit

Write the second section of your page here.Really most of the writing of the scholars in the Political Science field is not only difficult to read and to follow it’s also difficult to motivate yourself to read, by this I mean that most of the writing is extremely dry and uninteresting. Filled with legal jargon and court cases, you find yourself spending more time researching court cases and looking up words in the dictionary than you do actually reading the text itself. Any laws that are written and any court cases are usually exactly what I have just described earlier but it goes on for pages at a time, an eighty page court hearing such as the one I have mentioned earlier is nothing compared to what some laws have written for them. The writing is all extremely formal very long, and very boring. This, opposed to an article from the New York Times about the same thing I think really shows the difference between the two schools of writing and why one genre of writing seems to be more appropriate than the other in certain situations.

Scholars and journalist both support their claims from the same ideas, although the scholars and lawmakers are using charts, lots of research and other such data to support their claims, journalist use the same data and in some cases do even more in-depth research of certain claims to back a story, research a point better or even create a whole new article based on just one point in a major issue.

The strengths of scholarly writing are that your work is almost never challenged, it is mostly accepted as fact and as far as lawmakers writing goes it is one hundred percent accepted as fact. However the weaknesses of such writing are its formalities and you have to watch every word to make sure not to create any loopholes in the laws or policy. Everything must be airtight and that requires a lot of extra writing. The strengths of journalistic writing are most obviously the relaxed casual nature of the writing and the ability to write your own opinions into the work if you want to.