Compare Two Articles on the Same Topic: Facts vs Framing

Why Comparing Two Articles Matters

Reading one article gives you information. Reading two articles on the same topic gives you something far more valuable: perspective on the information itself.

Here’s the uncomfortable truth about any single source: it reflects choices. The writer chose which facts to include, which to omit, which words to use, and how to frame the narrative. These choices aren’t necessarily malicious — they’re inevitable. Every article is shaped by deadline pressure, word limits, editorial stance, and the writer’s own understanding.

When you compare two articles on the same topic, these invisible choices become visible. Where both sources agree, you’ve likely found solid ground. Where they diverge, you’ve found something worth investigating further.

This is the foundation of critical reading: treating sources as starting points for understanding, not endpoints.

How to Paste Sources Effectively

The Cross-Text Connector prompt (PR025) works with both full article text and summaries, but your input quality determines output quality.

Option 1: Full text comparison. Copy-paste both complete articles. This gives AI the most material to work with but works best for shorter pieces (under 2,000 words each). Mark clearly where Text 1 ends and Text 2 begins.

Option 2: Summary comparison. Write a 3-5 sentence summary of each article’s main argument, key evidence, and conclusion. This works better for long-form pieces and forces you to identify what matters in each source before comparing.

Option 3: Hybrid approach. Paste the full text of the shorter article and a summary of the longer one. Indicate which is which so AI calibrates its analysis appropriately.

The Four Comparison Outputs

PR025 generates four specific outputs. Here’s how to use each:

“Where do these texts agree?” Convergence across different sources is powerful evidence. If a left-leaning and right-leaning publication both report the same fact, it’s probably reliable. Agreement on interpretation is even more significant.

“Where do they contradict or create tension?” Divergence reveals either factual disputes (one source is wrong) or framing disputes (both sources are selectively presenting). Distinguish these — factual disputes need verification; framing disputes need perspective.

“What new understanding emerges from reading both?” Synthesis is where comparison becomes insight. Neither source alone tells the full story, but together they might reveal patterns, tradeoffs, or nuances that neither explicitly states.

“What question do BOTH texts leave unanswered?” Shared blind spots are significant. If two different perspectives both avoid a question, that question might be the most important one to research independently.

When to Use Source Comparison

Not every topic needs multi-source analysis. Focus your comparison energy where it matters:

Contested topics. Politics, policy, business controversies — anywhere reasonable people disagree. Single sources on contested topics are almost always incomplete.

Breaking news. Early reporting is often inaccurate. Comparing coverage across outlets reveals what’s confirmed versus speculative.

High-stakes decisions. If you’ll act on information, verify it through multiple lenses first.

For factual verification workflows, continue to the Fact-Check Mode guide. For single-source bias analysis, see the Bias Scanner Prompt. Explore all critical reading tools in the Critical Reading pillar.