Parents Cut Corners in Poor Economy

• Is the information in a given article accurate?

The information in the article is correct, but it does not go into great detail. It is a short article.

• Is there missing context that might undermine the premise of a given article or television segment?

There is missing information from the article. The article discusses how parent are more likely to cut costs in the times of the poor economy, at the danger to their children or to themselves. However, only one example of a mother diluting baby formula is provided. No other statistics or past instances are mentioned. It would be helpful to know just how common this practice of "cutting corners" is, and how commonly children and there parents are hurt by it. This missing context gives the article a tone of fear. A reader might wonder where and when this is happening around them, but the article gives no information.

• Which experts are quoted--and, in turn, who isn't allowed to give their opinion what does this leave out?

Only one expert is directly quoted in the article. The article mainly just uses the expression, "experts say". "Nancy Cauthen, deputy director of the National Center for Children in Poverty (NCCP) in New York, said she hopes this is an extreme, but she can't be sure." Since this is the only organization named, the reader is given very little perspective on where this information is coming from. It is difficult to gauge how reliable the experts may be, or what motive they might have for putting forth the given information. Another person who is directly quoted in the article is a member of an organization of low-income people trying to improve their community. She says this practice of cutting corners is "nothing new", but is unable to provide any concrete evidence or statistics.

• When TV news shows (or newspaper/internet editorials) feature a point/counterpoint debate, what political spectrum is offered?

Depending on the source of the news, the political spectrum might differ. The political spectrum might depend on the news network or the author of the article. In the case of the ABC article I chose, I am not sure of the networks political affiliation, if any. However, the tone and content of the article appears to be more on the liberal side. It does not quote any government officials and seems to call out for change or the help from some organization.

• Is the selected media simply reinforcing the status quo on a given topic, even though there may be no reason to assume that it is correct?

The article does not reinforce the status quo. Instead, it creates a sense of fear and calls out for help. It gives the reader the sense that something must be done to create a change. The tone of the article suggests a change in the status quo. While some status quo reinforcing articles are more likely to create a sense of calm about the economy, this article does the opposite. It creates a feeling of discomfort and fear.

• ADDITIONAL QUESTION: What are the consequences for a reader that is not given well-rounded information?
  

In the case of this article, the consequence is reader who has a false understanding of what is going on with the economy because not enough information is provided. Someone who does not directly encounter the practice of "cutting corners" with food and medical care could be left with a bad understanding of the reality of the situation. They may get the feeling that the majority of children are being malnourished, or adversely, that this has only affected one child. The reader in the end, is not given the facts and therefore left to make their own assumptions.


Click here for the article

It's official: U.S. is in recession

Is the information in a given article accurate?
The information of the article is accurate, but the concern is certain information is left out. The statistics in the article are correct as provided by the National Bureau of Economic Research, but they are only using statistics to support the argument of the article.

Is there missing context that might undermine the premise of a given article or television segment?
What the article leaves out is information surrounding how the economy got to the condition it's in, and what actions are going to be taken to improve the situation. The statistics are supporting facts that the US economy has been in recession since December of 2007, something the American people have already known. What Americans are probably wondering, as the information has been left out, is why haven't actions been taken if the economic situation has been recognized for an entire year.

Which experts are quoted--and, in turn, who isn't allowed to give their opinion what does this leave out?
The majority of the article is supported by experts from the National Bureau of Economic Research and the only direct quote comes from White House Deputy Press Secretary Tony Fratto. This is not a wellrounded set of sources because the NBER is funded by the government. This means that the article's only sources were government related.

When TV news shows (or newspaper/internet editorials) feature a point/counterpoint debate, what political spectrum is offered?
An unbiased article would require points and counterpoints in order to provide alternative perspectives on any given situation. In this case however, the reader is only given the government's perspective on our economic situation as told by the NBER.

Is the selected media simply reinforcing the status quo on a given topic, even though there may be no reason to assume that it is correct?
This particular article reinforces the status quo by restating what the American people already know, and providing no new information. The are trying to avoid the liberal media bias by not investigating it to closely. This suggests to the reader that there is nothing else to know about the issue, therefore discouraging them to look any deeper into our economic problems.

ADDITIONAL QUESTION: What are the consequences for an audience that is exposed to only one-sided media?
If a reader only turns to one source of news for their information, they may only be exposed to one-sides stories. The consequence of this is an uneducated public. By being fed only the opinions of a limited group as opposed to a wide variety of opinions, a reader is unable to sort through the information for themselves in order to make up their own educated opinion. This shows how important it is for a media consumer to expose themselves to different perspectives in order to educate themselves on an issue.

Click here for the article

Jessica McClanahan & Marion Herbert