The news story I chose to analyze for this blog post is this article published on December 28, 2019: Why the past decade saw the rise and rise of East Asian pop culture, written by Julia Hollingsworth of CNN.

As described on her CNN and LinkedIn profiles, Julia Hollingsworth joined the CNN news team in 2019 as a Digital News Producer. She is currently based in Hong Kong and has a number of accolades under her belt including a Society of Publishers in Asia (SOPA) award for her work. Based off the profiles made available on Julia Hollingsworth and who she currently works for (CNN, an established news media company), I believe it is safe to say that as a reporter on this topic, Julia Hollingsworth is definitely credible.

In the article, Julia Hollingsworth cited a variety of sources that she used to write the piece ranging from quotes taken from a Korean Studies associate professor at the University of Australia, an Asian Studies professor at the University of Oregon, and even a K-Popcentric YouTube channel co-host. In addition to quotes from reputable and relevant sources, Julia Hollingsworth also provides a number of hyperlinks throughout the piece to back up the facts that she states. By having numerous sources and using them well, Julia Hollingsworth cranks up the overall quality of her article. An article with no cited sources or linked websites makes it difficult for readers to verify the content of the article as accurate.

Julia even provided an embedded video demonstrating how South Korean culture is being spread in a small way on in-flight videos for airlines! However, I think the article may be lacking slightly when it comes to provided links to sources. There were a few areas in the piece where I was hoping a link would be provided so I could see a full study, or the video of an interview done with someone she quotes, but they were not there. A few of the quotes provided were attributed to people who had no additional background added on who they were or why they were credible as well.

As far as persuasive tactics or bias that lacks transparency about the writer’s view, I don’t believe that any are present. The article isn’t trying to persuade anyone that East Asian pop culture is on the rise throughout the globe, it’s merely presenting the facts as the Julia Hollingsworth and those she interviewed or quoted have seen to be true. There’s proof behind everything that Julia Hollingsworth states in the article and when opinions were presented, they were presented with good arguments as to why they were believed to be true.

If I were to give this story a letter grade as if I were teaching Julia Hollingsworth a course on Digital Media Literacy, I think I would give it a solid A. The article was well written, it used a variety of sources to compile information for the article and a decent amount of hyperlinks, embedded videos and pictures were added that were relevant to the topic and added substance to the story at large.

NBA Load Management: What we know and don’t know

In this article by ESPN, Kevin Pelton and Kevin Arnovitz they both have two sources consistently mentioned throughout the article, which makes for an informative and detailed read. Having two credible sources like Dr. Marcus Elliot, the founder and director of the peak performance project and the NBA league, gives the readers a deeper understanding and proof that there is strong evidence behind the content being written and described. As i analyze the sources mentioned throughout this article, the positive affects with two sources is the reinforcement that what the sources are describing of the topic is genuinely being said for the better understanding of the topic.

Furthermore in the article, both authors, Pelton and Arnovitz did a tremendous job at linking topics, names, words of importance, and data that would redirect us to different links to verify the answers given and to go into further description of the topic, and that is a key aspect to credibility, because there can never be too much evidence to anything, especially in the media world.

As seen in this article,  the amount of information given is almost endless. The reporters did a great job at asking the questions needed to get relevant  and concise content throughout the article. There was about thirteen questions which seem like an overload of questions for just one article, however, they were short and straight to the exact point of each question. They were all fair questions that I had initially in my mind as I started the article and luckily they started to unravel as I read to the end of the article.  There was a great amount of historical explanation tying that in with current times and where the NBA league stands on the topic.

There were about three questions that I noticed were geared specifically towards the NBA team the L.A. Clippers, meanwhile the rest of the questions were directed towards the league and the load management topic.  I’m on the fence if those three questions on the clippers are biased or not, since this whole load management topic started with the L.A. Clipper star Kawhi Leonard. Although, I don’t believe there was an intent to perhaps have a persuasive tactic, i can see where that can be misconstrued and understood as the reporters possibly coming off biased.

There is certainly transparency, along with seeking and reporting truth to the best of these reporters ability, and those are some journalism ethical codes, journalists should  follow religiously as they report and write in their careers. Both of these reporters certainly are credible, as they are part of one of leading sports network in our generation.

Overall, the grade I would give is an A because there were details on the topic at hand and then much more throughout the article to suffice the details in every paragraph. The questions were well constructed, giving us the readers a clear understanding of how detailed the topic of load management goes in the NBA, most importantly the credibility the sources display are key components to a successful story.

On January 8, 2020, Wired published a deep-dive into Quibi–an upcoming, mobile-only streaming service. Quibi differs from other streamers in that each episode of its original programming will be less than ten minutes long. In Hollywood Bets On a Future of Quick Clips and Tiny Screens, Adam Rogers reports on Quibi’s origins, explains why big names in Hollywood are excited about it, and looks at some of the reasons why it might find success or fail to catch on.

Credibility of Sources

Rogers conducted several interviews for this story. He sat down with Quibi founder Jeffrey Katzenberg and CEO Meg Whitman for a lengthy chat. This conversation clearly informed much of the piece and direct quotes are included throughout. Rogers also interviewed Madeleine Haeringer, who will be producing NBC News content for the platform, and Catherine Hardwicke, who is directing a series. He also spent time with Quibi’s tech team.

To gain some insight and perspective from people who aren’t involved with Quibi, Rogers spoke with television writer John Rogers, YouTube’s Kurt Wilms, and Ben Carlson of the media analytics firm MarketCast.

I think Rogers’ sourcing is credible. He spoke with knowledgeable people who are well-positioned to offer their thoughts and experiences. Obviously the folks at Quibi were trying to put their best foot forward here. Rogers even mentioned in the story that his visit to Quibi’s offices felt like a pitch meeting, but that doesn’t necessarily mean it was all smoke and mirrors. Within the story, Rogers made sure to differentiate between objective fact and the pro-Quibi stance of those involved. Plus, given the story’s purpose, these perspectives and opinions are relevant and necessary.

Use of Links

There are several links embedded throughout the story. Some lead to interviews of Katzenberg and Whitman conducted by other journalists. Others lead to previous reporting on Quibi published by a variety of media outlets. There are even a few that lead to Wired’s reporting on some of the other streaming services.

While it’s helpful that Rogers decided to provide some outside sources to support his reporting, I think he could have gone further. For example, as I was reading, there were a few points where I wished he would’ve linked to more information about the viewership numbers and audience behavior he referenced. I wanted to learn more.

Credibility of the Reporter

I do think that Rogers comes across as credible. First of all, he has had a long career covering science, technology, and pop culture. Quibi certainly falls within his area of expertise. Second, while the story had to be edited after publication to correct a YouTube viewership metric, he was transparent about having made that correction. A note explaining the change was added at the end of the piece. Third, he was also transparent about Wired’s connections to Quibi. Fairly early on in the story, he disclosed the fact that Condé Nast CEO Roger Lynch sits on Quibi’s board and that Wired might end up producing a show for the platform. While it’s important for readers to keep that potential conflict of interest in mind, Rogers’ reporting is measured and informative. This isn’t an ad for Quibi disguised as a magazine article.

Overall, I give it a B+

Though somewhat lacking in links, Rogers sat down with an interesting assortment of people for this story and looked at Quibi from several angles. I do wish Rogers would have dug into the perspective of the viewer a bit more. While he does cover some of the reasons to believe that audiences will/won’t flock to Quibi, hearing directly from potential viewers would add to that insight.

Additionally,  we know from the story that MarketCast has been measuring online chatter surrounding shows announced for the platform. Some are gaining more attention than others. But how does the enthusiasm for Quibi’s programming compare to the enthusiasm for other soon-to-be-released streaming services? Is MarketCast measuring this? Including that information would have enhanced readers’ understanding of how Quibi might fit into the streaming landscape.

The economist released a piece in their magazine 1843 called ‘OnlyFans: a day in the life of a top(less) creator‘ on January 10th, 2020, written by Sirin Kale a freelance writer from London. It follows the past of Lucy-Ann Brooks and through the interview touches on topics of women’s control and the porn industry.

Brooks is an ex-porn star who was enlightened when she found out about OnlyFans, it completely changed her life and carrier. She averages 20,000 euros she claims because she runs her app like a business with scheduled events and constant pictured being posted.

Kale goes on to talk about OnlyFans, which is a British company with 12 million users registered each paying on average between 5 and 15 euros a month. The reason why the app works is because of the culture we live in today, Timothy Stokely the founder of OnlyFans explains, “OnlyFans hits the sweet spot between influencer culture and web camming.” 

With the change in the porn industry and the fast-expanding mentality to not pay for porn creates a declining industry, “As with any industry in decline, as profits crumble, labor rights and pay are affected. Female performers may be paid £300 for a shoot, with another £100 thrown in for extra sex acts.” making OnlyFans the best choice for anyone in the sex industry.

The biggest part Kale covers and expresses the most opinion on is the opportunity that OnlyFans has presented women with, they are 100 percent in control, whereas before the porn industry commodified women’s bodies and kept most of the profits. OnlyFans has a standard 20% commission and leaves the rest to the content creators. Women using the site decide what the make, when, and who gets that content. OnlyFans is helping empower the women using their site by letting them have control.

Unfortunately, not everyone agrees with the lifestyle these women are choosing for themselves, Brooks sister also has an OnlyFans at one point and was fired from her job for such. So the repercussions can be great.

Now that we’ve covered what was talked about and the ideas behind the article were going to take a closer look. Kale’s sources are not linked but are credible with the interview from Timothy Stokely and Brooks. As with most of the article on OnlyFans, there is a close analysis of 1 or 2 people’s lives and how it has helped them. This, unfortunately, has no basis of what to compare to, what are only girls in the industry making? the only comparison is with what the writer had which is what brooks’ was making before and after OnlyFans.

My biggest problem with this article is that there is no information: no links, no information on the writer and her credentials, limited sources, this doesn’t create a rounded article that the reader can fact check. Brook’s could or could not be made up, many OnlyFans content creators don’t use their real name and even if that is her OnlyFans name unless you buy her content there is no way of knowing the truth in her story.

If I was a teacher grading this assignment she would get a B-, Although the article was riveting and written great unfortunately there is not enough information on where her information is coming from creating a strong sense of distrust from the reader.

The effects of music on charity is enormous. When it comes to knowing what kind of charity is a great fit for a powerful musician, there is a science to that. Not necessarily rocket science, but definitely a game that has to be played.    There is a source of information that has been seen as something useful to understand a little more about the effects of music on a charity. How Music Influences Charity by F. Duke Haddad sheds a little light on how this works.

The article shares different examples of how music influences charity and people in general. An example would is when Haddad mentioned that the event and the situation have to “be memorable”. He mentioned a very creative British video that persuaded people to call a specific emergency when in trouble.     The whole purpose was to influence many people to understand how to use the emergency hotline correctly. Using music helps to have memorable circumstances. This source is used very well because the examples that are used are credible due to the fact that they provide great evidence.

This source also shares examples of different songs that were considered charitable songs. This consisted of Michael Jackson and Lionel Richie’s, “We Are the World” and many more. This article gives the credit to the appropriate people whose’ songs are mentioned. This writer has been writing for NonProfitPro for over eleven years and they have great experience in this field.

When it comes to the verification of the sources, it is not so much verified by a ton of sources, but it is also provided by an author who has great experience with sharing information about media and lecturing, according to NonProfitPro. This is a magazine company that covers many other events and other information that regards nonprofit news and the world of non-profit organizations. The way that this source provides the information presented in this piece of writing is very organized and well thought out. It is also very concise and to the point. The links that are used in this source are pretty well done. There is only one main link used and being that this source’s news report is a few years old, the lin did not directly link to the information that was talked about .

When trying to connect to one of the links that were placed into the news article, the link did not work for some reason I tried to restart the link, many times but the link still did not work. This kind of unfortunate event really makes the source seem not reliable. It really puts into question everything that the source has provided as a presentation about the topic at hand. On the other hand, the information that was provided about the different songs that were used as examples was very legit. If you look up the information that was shared in the article, you can then verify the information to make sure that it is very much credible information.

The Joker and all its Controversy 

Often times when a big movie releases or is set to release there are a lot of press and articles surrounding the movie whether it be anticipated box office numbers or reviews from movie critics, we see a lot of media attention around them. One very anticipated movie from 2019 was Todd Philip’s, The Joker, starring Joaquin Phoenix, set to release October 4^th. With the Oscars coming up this Sunday, Joaquin has landed an Oscar nomination for his role and this movie, and its controversial plot line, is back in the media’s attention. As the movie depicts a large amount of violence, and gore it is very appropriately R rated. I think this movie could be considered both a thriller and a horror movie, having some elements from both genres. After being shown at the Venice Film Festival in late August of 2019, and winning The Golden Lion for best film, the Jokers grotesque and twisted backstory got a lot of backlash. Published on February 7^th we see yet another article from Cosmopolitan trudging up the controversy of this film.

. . . . .

Taking a look at this article we see four outer sources referenced. These sources coming from the Times, the Associated Press, a well-known press junket and also other well-known movie critics. We also see two quotes from Warner Brothers and the letter sent to them regarding their use of the platform and what it could represent. There also was included two sponsored posts from Instagram that promoted the film. Adding the quote from Time’s movie critic really gave this article some credible, thus furthering the controversy this movie has brought. Then also including the quote from the actor himself, provided by the Associated Press, Phoenix states “If you don’t know the difference between right and wrong, then there are all sorts of things that you are going to interpret in the way that you want. I just hope people see it and take it as a movie.”, which in a way flips the script and gives the article depth and dimension as to making the reader look at all sides and gain a bit of perspective.

. . . . . 

The way that the sources are integrated into the article I think really helps the readers eye flow through the article effectively. Two of the sources from other websites are hyperlinked into the article, verifying both sources and also giving the reader an easier way to reference back if they choose to. All quotes are cohesively mixed into the article, not chopping up the paragraphs, ergo adding more effectiveness to the flow. The way in which the author did separate the article into five different sections being, “first the plot”, “the potential issue”, “how the controversy spiraled”, “what the filmmakers have to say about it”, and “so…what happened with all that”. was a very adequate technique in splitting the article up in chewable pieces for the reader to digest better.

. . . . .

I believe one lacking element in the article was the last section where the author follows up on what happened after the film released, and if there was any basis in the controversy. In two little sentences if kind of throws out there that nothing came about from the movie, and a few precautionary measures were taken but nothing of the sorts of what some movie critics expected to happen. In a way it kind of just dismisses the seriousness in ways the author presented the whole issue.

. . . . .

I believe the article as a whole is very credible and transparent. This really isn’t much of an opinion piece, as most of the sources are just reported like news. With Cosmopolitan being a very well-known media outlet, and magazine, this article and the author gain a lot more credible than if it were written under a lesser known company. If this article were to have a letter grade, I believe that I would give it an A-. It has all the elements for an effective flowing article, including all the outside sources, making the article easier to read with different sections, adding in some pictures from the film and hyperlinking all other links. The only lacking part of this would be the follow up. The conclusion really isn’t there and it leaves the reader high and dry, and wanting more.

“Fashion gaffes are a reflection of the industry’s diversity problem” is an article written by Aileen Kwun for CNN. If I were to give this article a grade it would be an A. I give this grade for several reasons. The first of which is there was no sign of bias in the reporting. I appreciated this as a reader and know that it is important to other readers as well. There is nothing wrong with bias in opinion pieces as there is no way to escape it but in news pieces, such as this, it’s important to attempt to eliminate bias.

Secondly, this article linked many sources. A few of them are not see credible such as random tweets and a instagram profile. But they are crucial for adding nuance to the article. For the most part though the other sources are credible and clearly linked. An example of a credible source when Kwun wrote, “Chinese consumers account for nearly a third of spending on luxury goods worldwide” she sourced this information from Bain and linked the article as I have done so as well. Kwun also conducted several interviews for this piece which she quotes throughout the article.

Kwun herself seems to be credible as well. I was able to locate her on LinkedIn and her personal website where she links her various works. With this information along with what we learned about her from her writing I would say she is a credible writer. I didn’t find that Kwun failed to ask any questions in her reporting. She was very thorough throughout the entire article. Very detail oriented.

Th article itself was about some mess ups in the fashion industry that are actually an indicator of diversity problem. Chanel, Gucci, Burberry, and Prada are just a few brands mentioned throughout the article. These brands and others have appointed diversity and inclusion advocates but some are finding that they are still missing the mark.

A lot of the appointed advocates are white themselves and some people took issue with that. Some people do not understand how you can approach the problem in such a way that you are still excluding people of color. With social media the missteps do not go unnoticed. People are questioning how it can be that brands can continually mess up.

Kwun dives deeper into the question of how this happens. She writes, “brands pursuing profit at the expense of cultural sensitivity”. Kwun questions whether it is possible that brands simply do not care or do they just mistakenly miss the mark time and time again. I think it would be biased to simply say the brands don’t care. But it is possible to say that maybe they just don’t know better.

Kwun closes the article by talking about accountability. “While no fashion house has explicitly blamed their transgressions on insufficient in-house diversity, their responses to controversy offer a tacit acceptance of its role”. These fashion houses are making attempts to right their wrongs and that is worth acknowledging.

The health benefits of going vegan. What makes people thrive on a vegan diet? What makes others feel sick on a vegan diet? Are the health benefits often associated with being vegan truly due to the diet, or are they due to those who follow a vegan diet often being more focused on all around health and wellness?

In this article titled “Are there health benefits to going vegan?” written by Jessica Brown for BBC in January of 2020, the benefits and downfalls of a vegan diet are analyzed to help one determine whether or not a vegan diet is truly a healthy option.

But, how does this article actually do at reporting on an often controversial topic? In this weeks blog post, we are going to take a deeper look at Brown’s successes and failures and analyze the quality and credibility that her article has to offer.

A success of Brown’s is the ample amount of sources included in the article, all of which appear to be mostly credible.  The best sources Brown utilized would be research from the National Center for Biotechnology Information, studies shared by AHA Journals, alongside other research papers and studies published in academic journals. Alongside these credible sources, Brown also quoted other BBC articles she had published herself, such as this one pertaining to how much protein we actually need to be consuming.

While quoting oneself does not necessarily look good when thinking of bias, Brown does still include a good amount of easy to access research based information in her article. All of the sources are linked directly in the article when referenced, and each link takes readers directly to the source of the claim Brown was addressing. Out of about 8 sources, I only had trouble accessing one which was an article posted to a site designed specifically for academic sources. In addition to this, Brown does not try to conceal when she references her own articles – It is incredibly clear as soon as it is accessed that the contend was published by herself.

When considering author Jessica Brown’s credibility separately from her sources, I believe it gets a bit more gray. While Brown does seem to portray a very even field for the analysis of the health benefits of a vegan diet in this article, looking at her other works provides a unique perspective on her own feelings towards veganism. While I cannot definitively say whether or not Jessica Brown is a practicing member of the vegan community, I can say that she does seem to be particularly interested in the culture (take a look at an interview she conducted here with a vegan psychologist).

I believe that Brown withholds her credibility, because while it’s clear she she is interested in veganism it isn’t completely clear where she lies on the issue – Reporting on the good, but also ofter covering the bad too. With Brown’s sources and her background both showing an information based view point, I think she is incredibly successful on presenting ideas in a way that does not seem biased but rather just very well informed.

Throughout the piece Brown addresses the possible deficiencies that can be seen with a vegan diet, as well as how simple it can be to supplement for these deficiencies, alongside the fact that deficiencies can be present in any sort of diet. Brown does an exceptional job of attacking arguments from multiple perspectives rather than leaving them open ended, and gives solutions and perspectives that guide readers to the real answer to the question – Is a vegan diet healthy?

Brown answers her question clearly – any diet can be unhealthy, whether it be omnivore, vegan, carnivore, or pescatarian. There are benefits and downfalls to each type of diet, and aiming for balance is the best we can do for ourselves. Brown guides readers to this conclusion not by sharing her opinion, but by sharing research and education gathered from all sides rather than just her own feelings and beliefs.

If I were to give this article a letter grade, I would give it a solid A. Jessica Brown’s article comes from a place that feels like a level playing field for all points of view rather than a place where bias is heavy either way. I think this article shows a good example of citing credible sources and gathering information from multiple perspectives, and how that can be presented in a way that does not pull towards any of the ideologies or diets. Whether or not there are health benefits to going vegan over other diets is debatable, but this article’s ability to present the information in a clear and non biased manner is not.

I chose “Japan’s Skateboarders Roll, Warily, Out of the Shadows” written by John Branch and photographed by Chang W. Lee.  This article tells a story of Japan’s attitudes towards skateboarding and how it’s changing as the Olympics draw nearer. It’s told mostly from the perspective of Japan’s Olympic Skateboarding head coach, Daisuke Hayakawa. There are some quotes from other skateboarders, artists and a skateshop owner. There is only one hyperlink in the entire story, that brings the user to a different New York Times article about skateboarding culture in Japan as the Olympics approaches. This doesn’t detract or add to the article, though. This is a human story, it’s about skateboarders and their experiences as outsiders and rebels in a culture that highly values conformity and union.

There are a fair amount of sources, all skateboarders, but none from the actual Japanese Olympic skateboarding team. I think it would have been really valuable to get Yuto Horigome, one of Japan’s only skateboarders competing in the street competition. Especially, as he is ranked 8th in street competition globally. His perspective might be different as he is going to actively competing.

Hayakawa, shows himself to be a source that is very respectful of others around him. The story begins by explaining how Hayakawa carries his skateboard with him, without riding it at all, on a trek to his regular skate spot near the river. This is because he wants to be respectful of the people around him. However, he also explains at the end of the story that the counterculture of skateboarding is the real skateboarding. The story doesn’t particularly dive into what the counterculture of skateboarding in Japan actually looks like.

One of the biggest, and for me one of the most representative of skateboarding its core, skate groups in the world is the Osaka Daggers. The Osaka Daggers is a group of skateboarders in Osaka that skateboard at night and throughout the city without the same careful assimilation that Hayakawa personifies.

All of this adds up to an image that is supposed to show how Japanese culture views skateboarding and skateboarding’s reaction to it, but doesn’t quite show everything. I don’t think that this is necessarily the reporter’s or photographer’s fault though. Branch seems to be a successful and reliable extreme sports reporter. He won the 2013 Pulitzer Prize for feature writing for “Snow Fall.” Lee, the photographer, was a member of the staff that won two 2002 Pulitzer Prizes. These journalists may have not had the same access to individuals like Horigome or the members of the Osaka Daggers that others have had. Horigome is a full time professional skateboarder who may not have been available during the time this story was being reported. And the Osaka Daggers were in a completely different city.

I didn’t see any biases or pervasive tactics in the article. It seemed mostly like a regurgitation of information that was given to someone who doesn’t know much about skateboarding. I think the reporter and photographer told the story as they saw it, from the outside in. As a skateboarder and photographer, I can tell that the photographer doesn’t have much experience shooting skateboarding. His photos of the tricks, while interesting to look at, don’t capture them the same way a skateboarding photographer would.

Overall I would give both the reporter and the photographer a B. They were as transparent as they could’ve been without publishing interview transcripts. They each did their best to tell the story they were told with limited experience in the field and limited knowledge of the culture.

The article I have chosen to analyze this week is this one from ABC News. The article, titled “Sustainability in the fashion industry faces an uphill climb,” was published on January 7th, 2020 and written by Lizzie Knight of the Associated Press. 

Personally, I think that this story could have been reported or put together better. There’s so many different conversations going on when you talk about sustainability in the fashion industry. This story tries to cover a lot of those different topics quickly within a 5-minute read, but they should have just focused on one main topic and covered it in depth. 

Out of all the different points they make, the overall negative environmental impacts of fashion, Zara’s pledge to go sustainable, the Fashion Industry Charter for Climate Action at the COP24 climate conference, the Environmental Audit Committee proposal failures, and the unethical labor practices of the Rana Plaza disaster, only three sources are used. 

Two of these sources also only gave very short, one sentence quotes. While the credentials of the sources all correlate to the respective areas of the story, I think that more context is needed from them. 

Had the author used larger interviews, or had asked their sources different questions, I think the story would have flown better and had smoother transitions. 

For example, one of the longer paragraphs in the story is all about  how this Fashion Industry Charter for Climate Action is a big step forward for sustainability and will impact the fashion industry across multiple sectors, but the source used to back this up only says that the charter came when “we needed it most.” That’s the whole use of the source. 

Patricia Espinosa, who gave the quote, is the executive secretary for UN Climate Change. Maybe it was a rushed interview, but I’m sure that she has much more to say about the topic. In fact, I think that this section could have been a whole story in itself if it had been thoroughly reported. 

There’s a lot more to unpack here, and as a reader, I felt unsatisfied with the amount of reporting done. As someone who cares about sustainability, I’m reading these articles to learn something and become informed about policies and decisions, but I don’t really understand the whole history and progress of the charter based on this article. 

Luckily, all of the sources used in the article, though they may not have been used to their full potential, were credible. They’re all respected professions of high ranks within their respective fields and after doing quick Google searches for each, you can easily find their accolades as well as other reputable pieces of news content they’ve been quoted in. 

One more thing I wished the piece would have done was linked to their outside research. While there are a few active links throughout the story, they only lead to another page suggesting further reading from ABC News. 

I imagine this is to get the reader to stay on the site and explore for longer, but it’s not helpful in discerning where all of the facts presented in the story are from. 

There were some statements in the story, as well as statistics, that I would have liked to know more about. 

For example, in the second paragraph, the author credits the United Nations Environment Program as the source of statistics about fashions water usage and carbon emissions. Had the place they got this information been linked, it would have made the story more credible and user friendly for the readers instead of them going out of their way to fact check this. 

There’s another statement in the fourth paragraph where the author states that consumers are “demanding ethical practices and responsible retailing,” but there’s no source that backs up this statement mentioned or linked. 

While I know from previous knowledge that this is true, not everyone reading this story will, and I think that this is a pretty bold claim to not have any sort of resource to back it up. 

Overall, I would give this story a B- grade. While I think that the story is on the right track, the reporting and composition seem rushed. There are key elements and important facts from notable sources present, but they could have been developed further to give the reader a deeper understanding of the story’s topic across the board.