1. Determining whether an article is fair depends on a number of things, not the least of which is personal bias. In fact, the bias of the author and the bias of the reader help determine how an article's fairness is perceived. The two articles about OJ Simpson were written from different perspectives, which is no surprise. One of them was an editorial, which was heavy on opinion and speculation, while the other was an informative article, which relied on facts. In addition, one article was written prior to the verdict, the other after the verdict. Despite the different perspectives, both articles appear to be written from a vantage point assuming that Simpson committed the murders of Ronald Goldman and Nicole Simpson. This reader shares that bias because the factual evidence supporting guilt simply appeared too overwhelming for a reasonable person to believe otherwise. As a result, both of the articles seem fair in their treatment of Simpson, though a supporter of Simpson who believed that he did not commit the murders would probably not share that opinion.
             In The New York Times editorial, the writer's attitude was that Simpson was guilty. He pointed out several instances where Simpson's defense in both the criminal and civil trials was absolutely unbelievable, such as physical evidence establishing holes in Simpson's defense. The writer also took issue with Simpson's criminal conspiracy defense, pointing out that the speed of the alleged conspiracy made it very unlikely. Moreover, the writer clearly believed that the unfavorable civil verdict was well-deserved, if not severe enough to punish him for committing those murders. He believed that most Americans would support the reasonableness of the civil verdict, and that the civil verdict would not have any impact on people's feelings regarding Simpson's guilt or innocence. Furthermore, he suggested that while OJ might remain infamous u...