Editorials in four prestigious American papers and two Filipino dailies addressing the 1986 election and revolution in the Philippines were compared for differences. Four hypotheses were tested: (1) that in treatment of the Philippines, editorials in the U.S. national prestige press would place more emphasis than do those in the Filipino newspapers on topics that have evolved over a long period, received intense recent coverage, and relate clearly to American interests and U.S.-Filipino relations; (2) that the Filipino press would focus editorials more often than does the U.S. press on concrete acts and events relating to the campaign, election, and revolution; (3) that editorials in either country would deal more often with acts involving primarily that country and its citizens; and (4) that Filipino editorials would have greater agenda diversity than would American newspapers about events in the Philippines. Thirty-eight editorials from the "Christian Science Monitor,""Wall Street Journal,""New York Times," and "Washington Post" were compared with 85 editorials from "Malaya" and the "Philippine Daily Inquirer," each of which dealt with the election and its context between January 15 and March 15, 1986. Each hypothesis was analyzed extensively, with the first three proving supportable and the fourth partially supportable. Overall, the similarities between American and Filipino editorials, when viewed in structural terms, tended to outweigh the differences. (Tables of data and 56 references are included.) (AEW)