Category: Week Four

Given the opportunity to deeply analyze an article pertaining to the climate crisis stigma, I chose an article titled, ‘Climate Change Science in the Age of Trump‘ by Jerry Arkins and Jack Bernard, published February 3, 2020. There are many different aspects to thoroughly look though to ensure the credibility of any source. From the author, to sources, and quality, I will analyze several different aspects pertaining to this article.

This article goes in depth to talk about how Trump believes climate change to be sinister ‘fake news’ and further pushing the information onto his followers. It exclaims the climate change research scientist and their research regarding the negative and devastating consequences the it has had upon the planet. The article highlights the negative affects American farmers face everyday and how Trump’s latest proposal is essentially ‘bribing’ farmers to endorse him in exchange for government subsides. It explains the major misinformation and scientific coverups used in order to not conflict with their political aims. The article goes in depth about the inaccuracies stated regarding the climate crisis and Trump’s administration and statements.

Starting with the authors, Jerry Arkins and Jack Bernard, it is important to analyze their credentials and whether or not they are credible sources on the topic. Jerry Arkins is a former Texas A&M University administrator and biological and environmental systems research scientist.  Jack Bernard is a retired healthcare executive and was Georgia’s first Director of Health Planning. While they aren’t specifically experts on the climate crisis or political matters, they offer insights from varying fields that pertain to the topic. Their credentials offer a unique perspective within the article. But credentials alone, I would not completely trust their information.

As for sources, there are many different sites used to vouch for facts upping the articles credibility. Sites include President Donald Trump’s official Twitter, pertaining to his post regarding the climate crisis and his opposition towards it. There is research from the Economic Research Service/USDA concerning the demographics of farmers within the United States. The Government Accounting Office was referenced when speaking about farm subsides and corporate welfare. Along with several mentions of the Pew Research study conducting studies regarding the public’s regard for scientist and their confidence in politicians. Overall, this article references several different reliable sources. By including varying sources the quality of the article increases as well. It showcases the thought and effort put into crafting the document. This makes the article more credible by showcasing specialized research supporting their article.

Furthermore, it is important for an article to be transparent in regards to it being credible. Adding hyperlinks to the information cited would offer the readers an insight to read further about what is discussed in the article. And while using several government website to site information is great use of resources, obtaining statements from those they are referencing (ex. American farmers) could showcase great insight for readers. By looking into these statements and adding them, the article would be no doubt credible, but without, there is opportunity for misinformation to be stated.

Overall, I would rate this article a B. While offering a unique insight from the authors and including several different credible sources, the article failed to address those it often referenced and failed to include hyperlinks to further look into the data cited. For those looking into the climate change science, I would most not recommend this article first. I would offer articles that I believe are entirely well-rounded and credible. Then after I would offer this article once they gain much more insights on the topic.

It was widely reported that Harry and Meghan spoke at a JP Morgan conference in Miami this week.  Kieran Corcoran with Business Insider offered the his readers a look into this Harry and Meghan story with what appears to be a lack of real thought into facts.

On the surface, there are a few things that would lead a reader to believe this is solid content. These things include:

The Publication: Business Insider not known as a gossip site or tabloid but instead a place for business information. With this in mind, it would appear to be a trustworthy article.

Sources: Corcoran uses six outside sources with direct links to their content in the piece. While some like Page Six can be considered questionable gossip sites, BBC is also sited and it is a trusted news source around the world.

The reader would be woefully under informed  if they did not further examine the article and look for more information.  This article gives an overview with no real “meat” to the article. This is likely due to the speed at which consumer’s seek content especially concerning popular public figures.  Harry and Meghan are very popular worldwide and this was a business conference. It is easy to understand why Kieran Cocoran uploaded this content onto the site.

This does not mean as a reader, one should excuse such shoddy reporting. They should instead demand content that is both reliable and robust, which this piece is not. An examination shows the flaws with the article.

The six sources Cocoran uses include the following:

Page Six–  a known gossip site. It is cited twice in the piece for two separate articles about the event.

1Hotels-the site of the convention. There is no real information from 1Hotels however. It is merely a photo of the property from Instagram. There is no confirmed information from the site or even a source with information. If this was present it would could allow for an excellent first hand account of the events and perhaps even the speech Harry gave.

Reuters-This linked article also does not provide any information but in fact, is more speculation from a “royal source”.

BBC-while this new source is very reliable. The linked article lacks any substantive information and also uses Page Six as the source.

Daily Mail- another known gossip site that should not be considered a credible source for news. The linked article provides no credible information but instead speculation on speaking fees.

Business Insider-Cocoran cites two people from his own site and their speculation for how Harry and Meghan will earn money once they completely cut ties from the royal family.

Overall this piece deserves a letter D grade for reporting. I would give it an F but I have to give it a small bump up because we as consumers have created the culture where reporting must be now. Facts can be checked after the story has broke but a story must come out as soon as possible if media outlets are to compete. Sadly, until we demand more, we will continue to see failures in our news reporting.

As I touched on last week in my blog, Veganuary has ended.  Veganuary was a one-month pledge people made to try out the vegan diet.  Now that January has come and gone, people are trying to decide if maintaining this diet long term can be doable.  I will be conducting an analysis on a recent article written by Lisa Drayer, “Thinking of going vegan? What you need to know first,” as she discusses the trend of the vegan diet, differences in diets, and how to be responsible when switching to a vegan diet.

 

Vegan diet trends:

Drayer discusses trends for the vegan diet and how the topic has become increasingly mainstream.  A common number I have seen throughout vegan discussions, and one that she mentions, is the 5% increase in vegans from 2014 to 2017, which she backs up.

She also mentions several celebrities that are vegan and links the audience to several stories where celebrities open up about their experience.  Drayer includes a disclaimer that, “rich and famous vegans have professionals to keep them on track,” which I believe serves as a balance statement for those considering immediate change.

 

Varying diets:

Drayer does a good job outlining what a vegan diet is and isn’t.  One of Drayer’s sources, Sharon Palmer, a registered dietician, defines veganism as abstaining from all animal products and honey.  Drayer includes information on other similar diets that may interest this audience.

 

Changing one’s diet responsibly:

Switching to a vegan diet can be a big decision, and Drayer is dedicated to making sure that her audience has the information to decide if the change is doable for them.  Drayer’s source, Amy Kimberlain a registered dietician provides tips for cooking vegan dishes at home or when ordering out.  Kimberlain emphasizes that making the change needs to be handled with care, and that people need to be prepared to do some planning to meet all of their nutritional needs.

 

The purpose for the article:

This article does a good job a job explaining the increase in vegan population and how the diet can be maintained.  Closer to the beginning of the article, Drayer uses credible web linked sources.  Throughout the article, Drayer uses credible registered dietician sources.  As the number of vegans increases, the public health awareness on this topic becomes more pressing.  This is a public health awareness topic because some people on this diet do not take enough care to ensure that they are meeting dietary needs.

 

Drayer’s credibility:

Drayer is a CNN reporter, and I find her to be a credible source on this topic because she herself is a registered dietician and has a track record for reporting health journalism.  She has written other nutrition related articles covering plant burgers, soda, and hydration.

 

Concluding thoughts:

I would give this article an “A” for credibility because it provides information on how to transition to a vegan diet in a healthier way by encouraging readers to plan first.  I think that this article does miss some of the points for why people make the transition.  In an effort to not make the article too lengthy, I think the audience could have benefitted from linked sources on why regular people (non celebrities) make the change.

In the Washington Post Magazine Article “The Troubling Ethics of Fashion in the Age of Climate Change” written by Robin Givhanin November 2019, affordable fashion is called out for not being made in ways that promote the environment. Givhan used the term sustainability to discuss the waste that is evident in many fashion brands. The first step in deciding if this article is credible is looking at who wrote, Because Givhan is a fashion critic for this outlet, she herself gives this article a sense of credibility because she has experience on this topic. In looking deeper into her background, she received a Pulitzer Prize award for criticism in 2006 which gives me some the impression that she is qualified to speak on this matter and write a non bias piece.

Another important step to deciphering this article is to look for sources or other pieces of information that back up the main argument in this article. Because this piece seeks to answer the question of affordable fashion and ethics, the author spoke to numerous people both in the fashion industry and involved with climate change. This gave readers a look at both sides of this topic and a look at what is really going on, not just what the author thinks is happening. She used and cited her sources through links to other publications which really can help readers who want to know more about a topic the ability to decide for themselves. One example of her source was this article of the designer Gabriela Hearst from the beginning of the year titled “Gabriela Hearst is Dressing Women for a New Era of Political Power”.  The use of sources only adds to the believability of an author and their article.

Aside from sources and the author’s background, the author’s tone should be assessed when determining what the article is really saying. After reading this entire article, once for context and the second for clues, I did not feel like Robin Givhan placed emphasis on her own opinion. This article presented facts and information about the topic of affordable fashion and how its made but did not tell me what to think about it. For an article to be deemed accurate and credible, I believe it should give you information about the topic but not an opinion to believe about it to be seen as transparent. Opinions should be formed not told based on what you are reading and I found this article to do just that.

Through topics like the author, sources, and tone, a reader can determine the transparency and agenda behind a story. Some articles may be written to deceive or tell a single perspective on a story and others could be written so that readers can determine their own views on the topics. Although all should be written free of biases and opinions, that is not always the case so readers need to remain vigilant in deciding what to think.

For this article, I would give it an A- as an overall grade in transparency, believability and accuracy. I did not feel like an agenda was being set or a specific opinion had to be formed. This article laid out numerous statistics from sources about how affordable fashion can damage our climate but also showed how important affordable fashion is in the world we live today. Based on these two views, I was able to decide for myself what I felt on the topic. Robin Givhan did a great review on this. The only thing that stopped me from giving her a better grade was that I felt she could’ve elaborated more on the sources she used. I had to do a lot of digging to come to the conclusion that they were credible on my own and if she had just said why she chose these people or articles, I would’ve been able to decide by reading just her article alone that they were credible.

Warning: Undefined array key "file" in /home/kristyro/public_html/wp-includes/media.php on line 1749

In a world that seems to be moving a million miles a minute, prioritizing facts over rumor is of the utmost importance. This is especially true when considering our ever-changing news cycle and reporting around another whirlwind election season.

One of the issues that many voters are taking into account while considering which Democratic candidate to support for President is climate change. Because of the high level of interest around this issue, candidates are making climate change a crucial point of conversation.

The media is also taking notice of the emphasis on climate change, which is reflected in articles covering things like Kamala Harris calling for an end to the filibuster and Bernie Sanders’ Green New Deal.

While there is a high quantity of stories being published on climate change, finding articles that reflect a high quality of reporting on the issue is essential. For this blog post, I’ll be doing an in-depth analysis of this article published by Vox, paying particular attention to the overall quality of the story:

A guide to how 2020 Democrats plan to fight climate change: Tactics include taxing carbon, prosecuting polluters, space mirrors, and trillions of dollars in investment.

The overall purpose of this article is to provide a thorough, high-level overview of each of the leading Democratic presidential candidates’ climate change plans. Many of the candidates have published lengthy proposals, which is an overwhelming amount of information for the average voter to take into account. Articles like this one published by Vox help to boil the details down to the main points that are much easier for people to swallow.

One of the first noticeable things about this story is the fact that there is an abundance of links and subsequent sources that the journalist references. In the opening section of the article, there are links to a Pew Research study on Americans concerned about climate change, verifying the claim that voters consider it to be a vital issue. Also, there are internal links to other Vox articles, including stories about the third Democratic debate, the Sunshine movement, nuclear power, among others.

Getting into the meat of the article which discusses the individual proposals, many of the links and sources refer to the specific plans that were published on each of the candidates’ websites. While the writer breaks down the specifics of each plan, linking to the outside sources, as well as additional news articles published by Vox, allows readers to do their own research.

One noticeable omission in this article is the fact that the reporter failed to address several candidates who are still currently in the race. While it may be because these candidates have yet to publish their climate change proposals, I would have preferred to see this fact referenced rather than omitted altogether. Candidates that the article failed to mention include Rep. Tulsi Gabbard and New York City Mayor Bill De Blasio, among others. The reporter did, however, reference Gov. Jay Inslee and his campaign’s focus on climate change even though he is no longer in the running.

Taking all of these details into account, this article earns a solid “B” from my perspective.

Overall, this article did a thorough job analyzing the vast amount of details surrounding each of the candidates’ climate change plans. It did a great job of boiling down the intricate details into concrete terms that give voters a high-level understanding of where each of the candidates stands.

However, the fact that the vast majority of the links included in the article were internal links to other Vox articles rather than independent sources, as well as the reporters’ omission of any information on other candidates takes away from the overall quality of the article — thus, earning it the final letter grade of “B.”

Hello To All and Welcome to Week 4 for My Blog!

For this week, we were to find a major story on the topic I have been searching news stories for in the first weeks.  The story was to be published in the past 2 months and I was to analyze it deeply.  So, in keeping with my theme of trying to open my eyes to both sides of the coin on the topic of parental alienation in child custody cases, I chose a story that challenged my bias on this topic.  I believe if I go down the path of researching all the ways the news looks at my topic, both in the light that I agree with and the one I do not, I will have the opportunity to grow significantly in the area of digital media literacy.

The story I chose goes by the name of “’A Gendered Trap’: When mothers allege child abuse by fathers, the mothers often lose custody, study shows” .  I want to say that right off the bat when I saw the headlines, I expected to find a link to a completed study that shows significant numbers to prove what is being spoken about within the story.  After all, the research that backs the content within the story is based on an in-depth study completed on thousands of court cases involving custody, abuse claims of some sort, and whether it was the mother or father involved in making the claims or losing the custody after the claims were made.  However, some ways down the story, it is made clear that the study spoken about has not actually been published.

Now, the validity of the claims weren’t in question in my mind.  I have admitted previously that some parents will use parental alienation as an excuse to get away with abuse while others will use parental alienation as a form to unnecessarily cut the relationship between one parent and their child.  The problem for me is data, numbers, and statistics being used as a basis to discredit the idea of either parental alienation or abuse based from one gender, without a proper link to show where the information came from.  This part in itself raised so many questions as I read through this article.  Such as: statistics are very biased towards court cases that involve a mother losing custody due to abuse claims but could it be that less fathers have custody to begin with, thereby making the figures a bit off?  Also, it is mentioned that parental alienation is used as a way for fathers to punish mothers accusing them of abuse and the verbiage used is “overwhelmingly”.  What are the statistics for this fact and where has that information come from?

There are so many facts referenced in this article but I do not find that there are enough back-up links, especially without the finished study, to adequately prove the claims as they are stated.  For example, why not provide scientific links that could further explain what parental alienation is such as within the article “An understudied form of child abuse and ‘intimate terrorism’: Parental Alienation” or the study “Depression and quality of life in adults perceiving exposure to parental alienation behaviors”.  Maybe even provide statistics for other studies that show patterns of abuse within the child custody sector such as what you can find with the National Center for State Courts.  That is not to say that the links provided are not compelling, because the truth is that they are.  The stories within this story are horrible and are true examples of abuse where the system not only failed those mothers but parental alienation was used in order to further that abuse.

The writer may have not explicitly expressed their views on the subject, however, the wording does seem to point towards what the writer’s bias on the subject is.  The main thing I would like to see with many of these articles that talk about the subjects of parental alienation, child abuse within child custody cases, or anything within those realms is real provable facts and studies regardless of what side you stand on.  I think those aspects could provide a real unbiased and informational look into issues plaguing custody courts affecting both women and men.  I would give the story a letter grade of a B minus just for the lack of evidence for readers to verify data (not including the real stories used as examples as those were provided).  More so, I wished there could have been more links within the story based on statistics and data that I could research as this serious subject is a powerful one that deserves as much news coverage no matter what side you stand on.

Thanks for reading this week and until the next.

For this week’s post, I will analyze an article from VOX written by Emily Todd VanDerWerff, which reports on the tremendous success of the TV Special – Live in Front of a Studio Audience: Norman Lear’s All in the Family and The Jeffersons, which aired on ABC on May 22, 2019.

I chose a story covering this TV special, because it is one of the most recent examples of an effort taken by a major network to not only bring classic shows into the limelight again, but to prove to audiences of 2019 that these shows are timeless, and that they still resonate today. I chose this article because I enjoy Vox’s entertaining explanatory writing style. VanDerWerff’s reporting in this article is very laid back and also quite personal, yet it overall gives the reader a comprehensive idea about the special and it’s performances.

Although I am overall entertained by the article, I do feel confused as to what it’s purpose is. Though VanDerWerff reported on the ratings success of the special, and gave facts and in-text links to support her statements (including links to a page detailing the show’s ratings, as well as a previous VOX interview with Norman Lear), it is also written solely in her perspective. Because much of the article is sprinkled with opinion-based commentary, there is definitely a large amount of bias in it. Given the title and subtitle of the article, one would expect more of an informative piece of journalism. It is instead, a mix of an informative piece and a personal review. Though this mix can seem quite unbalanced, it does provide quality insight, and gives the reader a curiosity to want to watch the special if they hadn’t done so already.

Even with the article’s semi-biased tone, VanDerWerff incorporates several different writing approaches that make her article very interesting to read. She opens the article by asking the reader questions, she shares a personal story that compliments her positive feelings about the special, and she takes a moment to recognize Norman Lear as a pioneer of TV sitcoms. She goes on to do her own analysis of the program and explains it’s significance in it’s attempt to bridge the gap between the 1970s and 2019. She notes that we are still facing many of the same social and political issues that were displayed so prominently in these shows from the 1970s. This especially shows in the special because the source material was virtually unchanged, and not modernized at all for today’s television audiences. She then talks about the performances of the actors and how well they portrayed the original series’ iconic characters. Afterward, she gives her own consensus on the special, reports on the power of nostalgia in recent years, and what Live in Front of a Studio Audience’s success might mean to the future of revisiting classic TV sitcoms live. The article ends with a link for the reader to view the special on Hulu.

One thing that rubbed me the wrong way when reading the text was that VanDerWarff contradicts herself a couple of times. She says in the beginning of the article that she loved the special, but near the end, she states that it is a “clumsy” 90 minutes, and laments at the fact that in this day in age, we are constantly seeing remakes of every TV show and movie. She also goes into depth over the significance of the shows’ social commentary early in the article, yet she later she claims that the special only seemed to serve as a vehicle for nostalgia and celebrity cameos. That being noted, it is difficult to understand what conclusions her biases led her to.

I can make my own conclusion that the goal of the article was to report on Live in Front of a Studio Audience’s success, and how the nostalgia and cultural impact of All in the Family and The Jeffersons made it a ratings winner (and now a 3-time Emmy-Award nominee). Did VanDerWerff achieve that goal? In my opinion, I would say both yes and no. It was uneven in many areas, but I commend the effort she took in taking her personal perspective and applying it to facts to create a piece that could give a reader a comprehensive idea of what makes this unique television tribute a special one.