rephrase: "The New York Times used stronger evidence, because it did not immediately report how the explosion occurred. It stated the facts as known at the time. It reported that at the time of this article being written there was insufficient evidence to determine if this explosion was accidental or if it was done by another party. The New York Times had a strong understanding of how these ships work because of the reports given to them from Secretary Long from the US and from US Naval Captain Schuley. The New York Times did report that both Secretary Long and Captain Schuley thought this explosion was an accident. The New York Journal had no evidence and used only hearsay to claim the USS Maine had been blown up by Spain."

Answer 1

The New York Times presented more compelling evidence by refraining from immediately disclosing the cause of the explosion and instead providing the known facts at the time. The article stated that insufficient evidence existed at the time of writing to ascertain whether the explosion was accidental or caused by a third party. The New York Times demonstrated a solid grasp of how these ships operated, as they had received reports from Secretary Long and US Naval Captain Schuley. It did, however, mention that both Secretary Long and Captain Schuley believed the explosion to be accidental. On the other hand, the New York Journal lacked any evidence and solely relied on hearsay to assert that Spain was responsible for the USS Maine's destruction.