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