Now that I'm back home, here's an interesting article that I found on the website of our local paper. The feature is called "Beacon Hill Roll Call," and it lists the votes our representatives cast in the Massachusetts State House. However, it also includes small articles on the issues that are voted on. So, instead of analyzing media relating to the national government and partisan politics, I'm off to analyze media relating to the Massachusetts state government and partisan politics!
"Study and Delay Requiring Voters to Show ID (H 3772)"
This article is a summary of a vote taken on a proposal requiring early voters to show identification. It contains adequate background information about the amendment, about the views of those opposed and in favor of the amendment, and, helpfully, about some of the voting procedures of the Massachusetts State Legislature. The piece is three paragraphs long. It contains no quotations. The article represents both sides of the issue; however, it seems to label the opposition as Republicans because the middle article discusses the political issues Republicans have with the vote (the result of the vote was that the ID requirement proposal would be delayed until the state completed a study on the economic impact of the rule). It makes no mention of Democrats' views on the political process of voting for this study. However, in the last paragraph the less-politically-biased terms "supporters" and "opponents" are used. I would say that this article is slightly biased towards Republicans because it mentions only the issues that Republicans take with the voting process, and does not give Democrat opinions on the voting process.
I thought this article was very interesting. I must say that I am largely unaware of the activities of the Massachusetts State Legislature, so I appreciated that this article not only contained information on the particular issue and the vote, but on the voting process in the legislature. It provided me with more insight on our local governing system. Having stumbled upon this useful feature in our local news, I will now be following it more closely. A major issue that I have with this article is that it contains unspecific and probably inaccurate information in the second paragraph, stating of study amendments, "If it passes, which it always does..." and later saying "Republicans say studies are a sham because they are never done." I am not sure if study amendments always pass or if the studies themselves are never done, but these statements could have been put in clearer language. For example, the author of the articles could say, "In the last fifty years, no study has been completed," or something to that effect. This source is ideal for Massachusetts readers who want to learn more about our state government's activities and for people of my city who want to learn what their representatives are voting for in the state government.
Sunday, December 1, 2013
Friday, November 29, 2013
Day 10
It's the last day of my media analysis project! So, here's an article from the New York Times, one of the most widely read daily papers in America.
"Official Quits in Backlash on Gun Vote in Colorado." Jack Healy, New York Times. November 28, 2013
This article is about a state senator in Colorado who resigned after anti-gun control voters threatened to hold a recall vote to strip her of her seat because she voted for and sponsored gun control laws. It is slightly longer than one page long (it is a column on the side of the page). It contains lots of pertinent background information that helps me to understand the article. There are seven quotations in the article: one from the senator, Ms. Hudak, and one from a Democratic supporter, three slightly shorter quotes from Republican opponents of Ms. Hudak, and two quotes from neutral political experts. This distribution shows a fairly balanced view of the matter; however, much of the first half concerns the struggles Democrats have faced in the swing state of Colorado. Nevertheless, I think the article does a fine job of staying neutral and reporting objectively on these issues.
I appreciated that this article contained a lot of background information and explained the sometimes complicated process of recall voting clearly. Also, the addition of quotations from neutral experts is something that I have not noticed in any other newspaper articles (although it was a major part of the PBS News Hour show that I watched). Although the article was objective and contained information on the opposition to Ms. Hudak, I would also have appreciated more information on other reasons (besides gun gun control) that many voters were opposed to Ms. Hudak's policies. All in all, I appreciated this article because it provided a viewpoint into important events in another state. I often don't know what is happening in other states because I read the Massachusetts newspapers most often. I recommend this article to readers who are interested in events in each state or who would like to follow partisan politics.
"Official Quits in Backlash on Gun Vote in Colorado." Jack Healy, New York Times. November 28, 2013
This article is about a state senator in Colorado who resigned after anti-gun control voters threatened to hold a recall vote to strip her of her seat because she voted for and sponsored gun control laws. It is slightly longer than one page long (it is a column on the side of the page). It contains lots of pertinent background information that helps me to understand the article. There are seven quotations in the article: one from the senator, Ms. Hudak, and one from a Democratic supporter, three slightly shorter quotes from Republican opponents of Ms. Hudak, and two quotes from neutral political experts. This distribution shows a fairly balanced view of the matter; however, much of the first half concerns the struggles Democrats have faced in the swing state of Colorado. Nevertheless, I think the article does a fine job of staying neutral and reporting objectively on these issues.
I appreciated that this article contained a lot of background information and explained the sometimes complicated process of recall voting clearly. Also, the addition of quotations from neutral experts is something that I have not noticed in any other newspaper articles (although it was a major part of the PBS News Hour show that I watched). Although the article was objective and contained information on the opposition to Ms. Hudak, I would also have appreciated more information on other reasons (besides gun gun control) that many voters were opposed to Ms. Hudak's policies. All in all, I appreciated this article because it provided a viewpoint into important events in another state. I often don't know what is happening in other states because I read the Massachusetts newspapers most often. I recommend this article to readers who are interested in events in each state or who would like to follow partisan politics.
Thursday, November 28, 2013
Day 9
Happy Thanksgiving! We're eating our Thanksgiving dinner tomorrow, thanks to the six-hour drive that delivered us to our destination late this evening. Up for analysis today is a Wall Street Journal article that was one of the few government articles I could find unlocked on their website. There was, of course, a plethora of unlocked articles on Black Friday shopping - but that's American consumerism at its best, with no government involvement! The article I found here is another article about the rollout of the Affordable Care Act.
"Health Website Deadline Nears." Wall Street Journal online. Colleen McCain Nelson, November 26, 2013
This newspaper article found online concerns the deadline, set for this Saturday, that the Obama administration put in place for the Healthcare.gov exchange to work better for "the majority of people who are using it." The article is about three-and-a-half laptop screens long. It contains some background information about the history of the deadline that the administration set but does not contain information on the Affordable Care Act itself or on the specific problems Healthcare.gov has faced. Readers who have not been following the rollout of the Affordable Care Act would have no context reading this article. There are quotations from seven different people in this article. Five are Democrats or Obama administration officials, while two are Republicans opposed to the Affordable Care Act. This would seem to suggest a liberal bias in the article; however, the article itself presents a balanced view of the issue, calling to attention the discrepancies and vagueness in the White House's promises regarding the fixing of Healthcare.gov. The model of media of this article is objective reporting.
I see this article as more of an update for those who have been following the enactment of the Affordable Care Act than as an informative article on the act. I read it within the context of all I already know about the act; however, those who have not been following the issue closely would probably be confused. I would have also liked to see more specific information on the problems the Act has faced, as well as the White House's proposed solutions to these problems. Nevertheless, the article contained important information on the Obama administration's promises about fixing the website. It also seemed fairly objective, which is a plus for any article concerning a controversial topic like the Affordable Care Act. The Wall Street Journal is usually seen as a reliable source. This article was interesting and was a quick and easy-to-follow update on the healthcare issue; however, readers unfamiliar with the issue should look for articles with more information on the act itself.
"Health Website Deadline Nears." Wall Street Journal online. Colleen McCain Nelson, November 26, 2013
This newspaper article found online concerns the deadline, set for this Saturday, that the Obama administration put in place for the Healthcare.gov exchange to work better for "the majority of people who are using it." The article is about three-and-a-half laptop screens long. It contains some background information about the history of the deadline that the administration set but does not contain information on the Affordable Care Act itself or on the specific problems Healthcare.gov has faced. Readers who have not been following the rollout of the Affordable Care Act would have no context reading this article. There are quotations from seven different people in this article. Five are Democrats or Obama administration officials, while two are Republicans opposed to the Affordable Care Act. This would seem to suggest a liberal bias in the article; however, the article itself presents a balanced view of the issue, calling to attention the discrepancies and vagueness in the White House's promises regarding the fixing of Healthcare.gov. The model of media of this article is objective reporting.
I see this article as more of an update for those who have been following the enactment of the Affordable Care Act than as an informative article on the act. I read it within the context of all I already know about the act; however, those who have not been following the issue closely would probably be confused. I would have also liked to see more specific information on the problems the Act has faced, as well as the White House's proposed solutions to these problems. Nevertheless, the article contained important information on the Obama administration's promises about fixing the website. It also seemed fairly objective, which is a plus for any article concerning a controversial topic like the Affordable Care Act. The Wall Street Journal is usually seen as a reliable source. This article was interesting and was a quick and easy-to-follow update on the healthcare issue; however, readers unfamiliar with the issue should look for articles with more information on the act itself.
Wednesday, November 27, 2013
Day 8
Today it's off to the Metro! The Metro is the most widely-read print newspaper in the United States. This is almost certainly due to the fact that it is free, handed out at subway stations and other public places and frequently found hanging around the locker room of my school gym. I have here the Boston edition. There were no articles pertaining to national government issues in today's edition, but as I'm leaving tomorrow on break for a place where there are no subway stations, it's my last chance to blog about an article in this paper. I chose one about the Boston Police Department.
"Report: $11 Minimum Wage in Massachusetts Would Cost $1.16 Billion by 2016." Metro, November 27, 2013. Morgan Rousseau.
This article is about the proposed minimum wage increase in Massachusetts, some potential effects of the increase, and some arguments for and against the increase. It is about two-and-a-quarter laptop screens long. It includes some background information on the bill and statistical estimates on the effects of the bill, such as the number of people reached and total increase in wages; however, the statistics are somewhat unclear - for instance, although it says that the wage increase would cost $201 million by 2014, it does not specify to whom this would be a cost. This article is an example of objective reporting. There are 3 extensive quotations: one from a business leader opposed to a minimum wage increase, one from a pro-increase state senator, and one from a state senator with moderate views who thinks minimum wage increases should be weighed with the potential effects on businesses. This shows a fairly balanced, objective viewpoint towards the issue.
Although this article is somewhat vague on how exactly workers would be affected by the minimum wage bill (despite making statements such as "less than 10 percent of the workforce in communities like Newton, Brookline, Needham and Wellesley would be affected by a minimum wage hike"), it was an effective summary of the minimum wage bill now up for debate in the Massachusetts legislature. It was objective and did not seem to lean towards a particular side of the debate. However, reading it, I felt as though the author was not highly informed on the subject. Half of the article was made up of numerical statistics that seemed directly taken from a report (significantly, the source of the report was unspecified, which casts its validity into question), and the other half was made up of long quotes from opinionators on the bill. Usually, the Metro is not a very informative source, and personally, I often feel dumber after reading it. It is significant that I could not find any national news articles directly from Metro reporters on the website, and had to use this one from Massachusetts. This article was more informative than most; however, I would encourage readers to seek more in-depth information on this minimum wage bill if they wish to know more about it.
"Report: $11 Minimum Wage in Massachusetts Would Cost $1.16 Billion by 2016." Metro, November 27, 2013. Morgan Rousseau.
This article is about the proposed minimum wage increase in Massachusetts, some potential effects of the increase, and some arguments for and against the increase. It is about two-and-a-quarter laptop screens long. It includes some background information on the bill and statistical estimates on the effects of the bill, such as the number of people reached and total increase in wages; however, the statistics are somewhat unclear - for instance, although it says that the wage increase would cost $201 million by 2014, it does not specify to whom this would be a cost. This article is an example of objective reporting. There are 3 extensive quotations: one from a business leader opposed to a minimum wage increase, one from a pro-increase state senator, and one from a state senator with moderate views who thinks minimum wage increases should be weighed with the potential effects on businesses. This shows a fairly balanced, objective viewpoint towards the issue.
Although this article is somewhat vague on how exactly workers would be affected by the minimum wage bill (despite making statements such as "less than 10 percent of the workforce in communities like Newton, Brookline, Needham and Wellesley would be affected by a minimum wage hike"), it was an effective summary of the minimum wage bill now up for debate in the Massachusetts legislature. It was objective and did not seem to lean towards a particular side of the debate. However, reading it, I felt as though the author was not highly informed on the subject. Half of the article was made up of numerical statistics that seemed directly taken from a report (significantly, the source of the report was unspecified, which casts its validity into question), and the other half was made up of long quotes from opinionators on the bill. Usually, the Metro is not a very informative source, and personally, I often feel dumber after reading it. It is significant that I could not find any national news articles directly from Metro reporters on the website, and had to use this one from Massachusetts. This article was more informative than most; however, I would encourage readers to seek more in-depth information on this minimum wage bill if they wish to know more about it.
Tuesday, November 26, 2013
Day 7
Tonight I stayed with TV news, but went national with the PBS News Hour. I watched a half-hour segment of the show. It was a very different experience from last night's local news. Here we go:
PBS News Hour at 6:00 PM
I watched a half hour of this hour-long national news show. The broadcast contained far more information than last night's local broadcast. At 6:00, when I started watching, there was a 2-minute segment on the large storm affecting many parts of the nation. This was followed by a short, 5-minute summary of some important current events topics, which included an upcoming Supreme Court case on the Affordable Care Act; a potential conflict between China and Japan; and the US/Afghanistan talks, as well as some others. In the remaining time that I watched, 3 stories were covered in depth. The first was a 3-minute segment on the potential China/Japan conflict, the second was a 10-minute segment on the issue of illegal immigration and deportation under the Obama administration, and the third was a 9-minute segment on the conflict on Syria. All of these topics were covered in depth, with extensive background information. The news format consisted of the news anchors providing background information and updates on the issues, then interviewing experts on the issues. In total, the broadcast included extensive quotations from 8-10 experts, as well as 3-5 film clips from those involved in the issues (such as President Obama and the leader of the Free Syrian Army). The interview with a Wall Street Journal journalist about the China/Japan conflict was objective, and the coverage of Syria included speakers for and against US involvement in Syria; however, when immigration was covered, the only speakers were a law expert with moderate views on the immigration debate and a pro-immigration member of the National Immigration Law Center. This suggests a liberal bias. The show, however, is an example of objective reporting and presented a balanced view of most topics.
The PBS News Hour was far more informative than WBZ Evening News. Unlike the local news, this show was very dense with information, only interspersed with quick slides of online news media and PBS programs between the introduction of topics. Instead of passively absorbing the news, I had to focus to keep up with and comprehend all the information. The interviewers' questions were thoughtful and they also seemed well-informed about the issues. Overall, the tone was much more serious than the WBZ News; there was no music, no banter between news anchors, and no flashy graphics; visual content was restricted to footage and images relating to the topics. This news coverage is clearly aimed at a more educated viewership; the language is fairly intellectual and there is no hint of news-as-entertainment. Although I occasionally had trouble following the broadcast and understanding the issues, I think I would get used to it if I frequently watched this show. The PBS News Hour was highly informative and I would strongly recommend it to viewers looking for a serious TV news program. However, I would also supplement viewership of this show with additional research of the topics and issues; I detected a liberal bent in the discussion of US government issues and viewers should seek arguments for the other side of the issue if they feel that there is a pronounced ideological bent in a media source.
PBS News Hour at 6:00 PM
I watched a half hour of this hour-long national news show. The broadcast contained far more information than last night's local broadcast. At 6:00, when I started watching, there was a 2-minute segment on the large storm affecting many parts of the nation. This was followed by a short, 5-minute summary of some important current events topics, which included an upcoming Supreme Court case on the Affordable Care Act; a potential conflict between China and Japan; and the US/Afghanistan talks, as well as some others. In the remaining time that I watched, 3 stories were covered in depth. The first was a 3-minute segment on the potential China/Japan conflict, the second was a 10-minute segment on the issue of illegal immigration and deportation under the Obama administration, and the third was a 9-minute segment on the conflict on Syria. All of these topics were covered in depth, with extensive background information. The news format consisted of the news anchors providing background information and updates on the issues, then interviewing experts on the issues. In total, the broadcast included extensive quotations from 8-10 experts, as well as 3-5 film clips from those involved in the issues (such as President Obama and the leader of the Free Syrian Army). The interview with a Wall Street Journal journalist about the China/Japan conflict was objective, and the coverage of Syria included speakers for and against US involvement in Syria; however, when immigration was covered, the only speakers were a law expert with moderate views on the immigration debate and a pro-immigration member of the National Immigration Law Center. This suggests a liberal bias. The show, however, is an example of objective reporting and presented a balanced view of most topics.
The PBS News Hour was far more informative than WBZ Evening News. Unlike the local news, this show was very dense with information, only interspersed with quick slides of online news media and PBS programs between the introduction of topics. Instead of passively absorbing the news, I had to focus to keep up with and comprehend all the information. The interviewers' questions were thoughtful and they also seemed well-informed about the issues. Overall, the tone was much more serious than the WBZ News; there was no music, no banter between news anchors, and no flashy graphics; visual content was restricted to footage and images relating to the topics. This news coverage is clearly aimed at a more educated viewership; the language is fairly intellectual and there is no hint of news-as-entertainment. Although I occasionally had trouble following the broadcast and understanding the issues, I think I would get used to it if I frequently watched this show. The PBS News Hour was highly informative and I would strongly recommend it to viewers looking for a serious TV news program. However, I would also supplement viewership of this show with additional research of the topics and issues; I detected a liberal bent in the discussion of US government issues and viewers should seek arguments for the other side of the issue if they feel that there is a pronounced ideological bent in a media source.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)