News comparison worksheet
By Crosswire · Published
A news comparison worksheet records how two outlets cover the same event: what they lead with, how they word the headline, whose evidence they use and what context they provide. Use this free template to separate what you observed from what you inferred. A difference in framing is a question to investigate, not proof that a report is false.
Print this page using your browser's Print command: only the blank worksheet prints. Or copy the text template into your own document. No account or form submission is needed.
Before you start: make the comparison fair
Choose a specific event, rather than a topic as broad as immigration or the economy. Open two reports published at roughly the same stage of that event. If one precedes a court decision and another follows it, mark that difference before interpreting the headlines. Record when you looked at the front pages too: their story order can change while the underlying articles stay the same.
Decide what you want to compare. Two outlets in one country can show different editorial priorities; two countries can show how a shared event affects different audiences. Outlets with similar political labels can still disagree about evidence, emphasis or importance. A left/center/right selection is one useful starting point, not a requirement for a valid comparison and not a guarantee of independent reporting.
Use Crosswire's comparison presets or choose outlets across countries in Favorites. Start with the front pages, then follow the links to the publishers for the full reports, bylines and evidence. A preview may fail or show an older response; check the publisher directly if timing matters. A headline alone rarely supports a judgement about a whole story.
Blank news comparison worksheet
Event: ____________________ Observer: ____________________
Question to investigate: __________________________________________________
| What to record | Outlet A | Outlet B |
|---|---|---|
| Source and timingOutlet, country, page URL, date, time and timezone; original language or translation. | Write your observations for outlet A | Write your observations for outlet B |
| Story and formatEvent, article URL, publication time, byline; news report, analysis, opinion or live blog. | Write your observations for outlet A | Write your observations for outlet B |
| PlacementLead story, lower on the page, or not visible in the area checked. Record how far you looked. | Write your observations for outlet A | Write your observations for outlet B |
| HeadlineExact wording for your notes. Underline the actor, main verb and any numbers. | Write your observations for outlet A | Write your observations for outlet B |
| Image and captionWhat is shown? What does the caption establish? Distinguish visible detail from interpretation. | Write your observations for outlet A | Write your observations for outlet B |
| Evidence and voicesNamed sources, documents, data and quotations. Who makes each claim? | Write your observations for outlet A | Write your observations for outlet B |
| Shared reportingAgency credit, identical wording, shared press release or independent reporting? | Write your observations for outlet A | Write your observations for outlet B |
| Context and uncertaintyBaseline for numbers, relevant history, missing perspectives and questions still open. | Write your observations for outlet A | Write your observations for outlet B |
Observation: Both reports say __________________________________________
Difference: A emphasises __________________; B emphasises __________________
Evidence: My interpretation rests on ____________________________________
Alternative explanation: ______________________________________________
Still to check: ______________________________________________________
Crosswire · crosswire.online/news-comparison-worksheet · CC BY 4.0. This licence covers the worksheet, not publishers' articles or images.
Worked example: two headlines, one fictional decision
The following event, outlets and headlines are invented for this exercise. They are not quotations from a publisher or evidence about any real news organisation. Suppose a city council votes 7–4 to try a six-month bus lane on Market Street. Its published proposal removes 30 parking spaces, estimates shorter bus journeys and promises a review after the trial. The estimate has not yet been tested by the trial itself.
Fictional outlet A
Council approves bus-lane trial aimed at shorter journeys
Fictional outlet B
Market Street to lose 30 parking spaces in bus-lane trial
Observation: A leads with the council's action and the intended transport benefit. B leads with a location and a cost to parking availability. Both identify a trial. A uses an aim, rather than claiming the shorter journeys have already happened; B states the number of spaces affected. Neither headline, on the information given, contradicts the fictional proposal.
Interpretation: The headlines invite readers to begin with different consequences of the same decision. That supports a narrow finding about emphasis. It does not establish the outlets' political affiliation, which report is more accurate, or whether either author intended to mislead. You would need the articles to know whether A also discusses parking and whether B explains the projected travel benefit.
Next check: Read the proposal and vote record. Look for the basis of the travel-time estimate, who is quoted and whether both reports distinguish a forecast from a measured result. If both reproduce the same council press release, count that as a shared source. Two headlines do not turn one underlying claim into two independent checks.
How to turn your notes into a defensible conclusion
Start with something another reader could verify: a quoted word, a named source, an article's position or a link to a document. Then explain your interpretation and give a plausible alternative. A story appearing lower on one homepage might reflect audience interest, a later update or a different edition. It is useful evidence about that page at that time; it is not a complete account of the outlet's priorities.
Use precise limits when describing absence. Write “not in the first five stories I checked at 10:00 UTC”, rather than “the outlet ignored it”. Search the publisher's own site before making a broader claim about missing coverage. Likewise, a person not quoted in one report may appear in another article. Record the sample you examined so someone else can understand how much your conclusion covers.
Separate factual accuracy from editorial leaning. Crosswire's labels describe approximate orientations; they do not score the truth of individual claims. In the current directory, Center also includes outlets without a confident left/right assessment. It must not be read as a certificate of neutrality. The classification methodology and analysis of the directory's limits explain why this distinction matters.
If you translate a report, note the original language and the tool used. Translation can change tone and meaning, including ambiguity, quotations and specialist terms. Check an important phrase against the original or with a competent speaker before attributing its wording to the newsroom. If you cannot resolve it, keep that uncertainty in the conclusion instead of treating the translated text as definitive evidence.
For teachers: discuss evidence before scoring opinions
Ask pairs of students to fill the same worksheet independently, then exchange notes. Have each pair identify one observation they can reproduce, one interpretation they disagree with and one question that needs another source. Assess whether the evidence supports the conclusion, not whether students assign the political label you expected. A careful statement of uncertainty can be a better result than a confident accusation.
For a shorter session, use just the headline, evidence and conclusion rows. For a longer exercise, repeat the observation at a second time and discuss what changed. Keep URLs and timestamps with the notes because live pages move on. The worksheet does not save a copy of a publisher's page, and Crosswire is not an archive of previous editions. The education page offers other classroom exercises.
Sources, reuse and next steps
This is an original Crosswire worksheet. Digital Inquiry Group's Teaching Lateral Reading explains why readers should leave a source to investigate what other sources say about it. News Literacy Project's Understanding bias provides background on framing, tone, story selection and sourcing. These resources inform the exercise; neither organisation endorses Crosswire.
You may copy and adapt this worksheet under CC BY 4.0. Credit “Crosswire, News comparison worksheet”, link to this page and the licence, and indicate your changes. This permission covers Crosswire's worksheet and fictional example. It does not grant rights to republish the news articles, photographs or other publisher material you choose to examine.