The first thing I try to consider when evaluating is the headline: Colleges Face Investigations Over Whether Their Use of Social Media Follows Accessibility Regulations. While it will catch the attention of many in higher ed simply due to the current climate, it is not overstated, it simply states a fact. There is no fear-mongering, and it isn’t misleading.  It gives a good idea of what the article is about without being “click-baity.”

The next thing I usually try to investigate when looking at news article is the source. This article comes from EdSurge which is a trusted news source in the education world. The byline is a link to Rebecca Koenig’s bio page which showcases her qualifications, accomplishments, and awards along with a listing of dozens of articles she has written, all of which builds extra credibility.

The article itself references many well-respected higher ed and accessibility organizations, including WebAIM , WCAG 2.1 Guidelines, and the Section 508 website page about social media accessibility. It also relies heavily on quotes from Cyndi Rowland the executive director of WebAIM.  Rowland is a definite subject matter expert, she literally oversees the writing and development of the standards which are enforced by the law.  Everything which veers into opinion in the article comes from quotes from Rowland. However, adding in quotes from another expert or an opposing opinion might have rounded out the article a little more.

The article provides four links to articles about court cases relating to higher ed websites and social media use and these all come from credible sites such as InsideHigherEd, the National Federation of the Blind and the United States Department of Education. There are also eleven links that detail compliance initiatives by various colleges and social media networks.

I think I would give this article an A- if I were grading it. The article has many positive qualities. The source and the author are very credible, as well as the subject quoted.  The author referenced the most high profile court cases about web and social media accessibility in higher ed that we are all keeping our eyes on now. There are many quality articles and publications referenced in the article. There are many links that help the reader to verify the information and to research on their own. I think what is missing from this article are differing opinions.  Koenig could have spoken to an administrator at an institution that has been flagged for not meeting regulations or one that is working to meet regulations to see the other side of the story.  Colleges aren’t actively trying to make their social media inaccessible and for the most part, colleges are aware of the reasons they need to comply with the law.  The disconnect comes from training, time constraints and budget issues – not apathy or complete ignorance.  Getting information from the other side would help to show the difficulties colleges are facing when it comes to all kinds of accessibility initiatives and regulations and maybe help to find a solution to bridge the gap so that colleges can work to become more accessible in every aspect.

Warren and Sanders vs Army of Darkness

The battle for the viability of presidential candidates in the 2020 election is a slow drip of news. The news will not become less numerous, albeit it is ever-growing in relevance and importance. Media stories will undoubtedly exhibit headlines that will take different approaches to showcase the significance of the multitude of candidate’s policy proposals.

In this example of media analysis, I will endeavor to analyze this news story by Vox media that attempts to explains the details concerning democratic hopefuls Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders’ healthcare proposals. The article does not expand to an overall reflection of the candidates’ platform but focuses directly on the dynamic of the two on healthcare in the 2nd Democratic debate.

As I have previously described in other blog posts, Vox media is a well known, independently operated, largely neutral digital media source. Whether or not you agree with the platform, upon examination, the news source appears to be largely neutral and refrains from egregious insertion of opinion. The viewer’s interest in certain content may contain information, by de facto, that only creates a filter-bubble by uninformed viewership.

Although within an article streamlined in substance and content, the explanation and defense of the proposed Medicare-for-all policy will be a key distinguishing factor for the two progressive candidates. The way this article presents the facts surrounding this portion of the debate will attempt to be an isolating factor in the run-up to the election.

The article was written by and reflects the analysis of policy and politics reporter Tara Golshan. Although described as only being active for Vox since 2016, the article’s content is verifiable in that it was publically broadcast for the consumption of the general public. I am not as concerned about the accuracy of the article surrounding the story, and more concerned with the framing or any potential underlying bias.

Despite framing the article to be critical and/or lenient to the candidates as a mixed bag, the underlying opinion is often unavoidable. As the author explains the candidate’s actions and message in the debate, she tends to paint polarizing narratives of the candidates’ performances. It becomes obvious that the reporter writes largely positively of the candidates’ performances, but she paints Sanders as aggressive and Warren as approachable throughout the article. At various points, she runs counter to her methodology when she slips in softened versions of that narrative.

Overall, Golshan is fair to all candidates in the debate but she portrays a rift in the eager democratic candidates. Painting a picture of Warren and Sanders vs the world (progressive vs moderate candidates) is, in my opinion, often detrimental to the candidates’ messaging. Although intentionally aggressive in nature, there seems to be an underlying knock against the candidates’ largely unified policy platform. Rather than describing an ultimately effective union of two candidates, describing a contemptuous divide is a more effective news reporting method.

It seems evident that the framing of the story in this way creates an opportunity to synthesize interest in the story more so than fairly or accurately describing the content. Like is common and almost obligatory in today’s fast news cycle, the creation of a shocking and eye-catching headline is almost a necessity. Rather than fairly framing a story of cohesion, the article is likely to become more effective to the public’s interest by creating a story of conflict. Similar to the headline I created above in this blog post, the general public is more likely to seek out a story that contains conflict than solidarity. To be fair, this is common practice and this article is not overly guilty of this maneuver.

In a fictional scenario where I would be qualified to give this story a collegiate-like letter grade, I would give it a B+. This article gives all of the predefined appearances of fairness and objectivity, but it fails in that it clearly creates a framework of establishment bias. It is not as though the reporting is inaccurate or unfair, only that it intentionally creates a scenario that will be subconsciously dividing of the two sides of the same party. Please don’t get me wrong, the story is effective but it falls into the popular category of divisive politics. Let’s be fair, my own confirmation bias is likely to be present in my grading procedure.