Full Analysis Summary
Missing source material
I cannot produce a comprehensive 4–6 paragraph article about the New Zealand government banning gang patches because the provided source snippets contain no factual reporting about that policy.
Each snippet explicitly says the article text is missing and asks for the full article or a link.
For example, Букви writes, "I don't have the article — only that single quote. Could you paste the full article text or a link? … Once you share the article I'll summarize it."
CNN likewise says, "I don't have the rest of the article — only that one sentence. Could you either paste the full article or share a link?"
Because neither source includes details such as dates, legal text, official statements, enforcement plans, or reactions, I lack the primary material needed to write the requested piece.
I must ask you to provide the articles or links before I can proceed.
Coverage Differences
Missed information
Both sources explicitly state they lack the full article; this is not a difference in reported facts but a shared limitation. CNN (Western Mainstream) adds an offer to look up the article if the user provides topic/dates, while Букви (Other) asks only that the user paste the article or link and specify the summary format. These differences are about the help offered rather than content about the NZ policy.
Tone/narrative
Both snippets are neutral and procedural, asking for more input; CNN’s wording (“I can look it up”) is slightly more proactive and service-oriented, while Букви’s wording focuses on the user pasting the article and choosing a summary format. Neither snippet makes claims about the substance of a New Zealand ban on gang patches.
Required facts for article
To produce the article you requested, I need specific factual elements that are absent from both snippets.
Those elements include the exact wording of any bill or regulation banning gang patches, the date the law was passed or proposed, quotes from government officials or police, reactions from affected groups (gangs, community organizations, human-rights bodies), and reporting on enforcement and penalties.
Without these facts, any narrative about motives, legal basis, impact, or whether the move is contested would be speculative.
Both provided sources indicate they cannot supply these facts until you provide the underlying article text or a link.
Please provide the reformatted version with the specified structure.
The output should be formatted as a JSON instance that conforms to the JSON schema shown below.
The schema requires a paragraphs array of strings and a subheader string.
An example in the prompt demonstrates what a well-formatted instance looks like to guide your output.
Coverage Differences
Missed information
The core missing items (legal text, dates, official quotes, reactions) are identical gaps in both sources’ snippets; neither source supplies substantive reporting. This is a shared omission rather than a disagreement between sources.
Service orientation
CNN explicitly offers to find the article if given topic/date, indicating an alternate route to obtain reporting; Букви does not make that offer and instead asks the user to paste the article directly and specify summary format.
Ban coverage outline
I can outline a clear 4–6 paragraph structure to use once you provide content.
Paragraph one will be a lead describing the ban: what the law says, the date, and who proposed it.
Paragraph two will explain the government rationale and include quoted statements from ministers or police.
Paragraph three will summarise responses from affected groups, civil society, and legal experts.
Paragraph four will detail enforcement mechanisms, penalties, and the implementation timeline.
Paragraph five is for broader context, such as the history of gang-related legislation in New Zealand and any similar precedents, and an optional paragraph six can cover international or human-rights perspectives; I will reflect the tone and severity present in your sources and quote and attribute language precisely, but I cannot do that until you supply the underlying reporting or official documents.
Coverage Differences
Narrative framing
Because neither snippet contains reporting, there is no existing framing to reconcile. If/when you supply articles, I will compare how different source types (e.g., Western Mainstream like CNN vs. Other like Букви) emphasize law, security, rights, or social impact, and I will explicitly name each source and quote it where relevant.
Instructions for Article Formatting
Please paste the full text(s) or a direct link to the article(s), or tell me the exact article topic, source and date so I can retrieve reporting myself (as CNN offered).
Once you provide that, I will produce the requested 4–6 paragraph article and include for each paragraph a citations list plus an explicit section comparing how each source (named and typed) covers the issue, noting contradictions, omissions, tone differences and exact quotes.
Right now the only accurate, evidence-based statement I can make, based strictly on the supplied snippets, is that the full articles are missing and further input is required.
Please provide the reformatted version with the specified structure.
The output should be formatted as a JSON instance that conforms to the JSON schema below.
As an example, for the schema {"properties": {"foo": {"title": "Foo", "description": "a list of strings", "type": "array", "items": {"type": "string"}}}, "required": ["foo"]} the object {"foo": ["bar", "baz"]} is a well-formatted instance of the schema.
The object {"properties": {"foo": ["bar", "baz"]}} is not well-formatted.
Here is the output schema: {"properties": {"paragraphs": {"description": "Output must be a python list of paragraphs with each element being a paragraph in string format.", "items": {"type": "string"}, "title": "Paragraphs", "type": "array"}, "subheader": {"description": "A python string of the subheader you have decided for the paragraphs in totality", "title": "Subheader", "type": "string"}}, "required": ["paragraphs", "subheader"]}.
Coverage Differences
Action offered
CNN explicitly offers a lookup service (“I can look it up”), which provides a practical alternative to pasting the text; Букви’s instruction focuses on pasting the full text or link and specifying summary preferences. This operational difference affects how quickly I can obtain the necessary material to write the article.
Certainty/ambiguity
Both sources are explicit about the lack of content, producing a clear and unambiguous reason I cannot complete the requested article until more information is provided.