Day 2

Day 2 of media analysis project! Today I'm looking at an article from Rolling Stone, issues of which are often lying around my house because my mom cashed in some airline points for a free subscription. Many of the articles in this magazine are very provocative, but we'll see where this one takes us:

"The GOP's War on the Poor." Elizabeth Drew, Rolling Stone (Nov. 7, 2013)


This source is a magazine article about Congress's recent action on the national food stamp program. It is about 4.5 pages long. The article contains background information on the history of the food stamp program, which provides aid to families and individuals who may not have enough income to purchase an adequate amount of food, on the basic guidelines of the food stamp program (such as requirements and costs), and on recent legislative actions taken and policies considered concerning the food stamp program. The author has also included many statistics on the food stamp program. The article contains about seven to nine quotations, but the longest and most in-depth quotes are from Democrats and supporters of the food stamp program. Quotes from Republicans, and those who favor cuts to the food stamp program, are short, anecdotal, and do not describe the reasons for their views, but instead are used by the author to support her personal views of these people. Although the article concerns social issues and the author uses the article to become involved in the legislative practice, it is more propaganda  than public advocacy because it is not objective and thus attempts to manipulate public opinion by presenting a limited viewpoint of the issue. It de-legitimizes the views of those who support cuts to the food stamp program and favors the views of food stamp supporters. There is a strong bias in this piece, which is not only liberal, but blatantly partisan in favor of the Democrats. The author is openly hostile towards Republicans. The subheading of the article is "Republicans are pushing to decimate food-stamp programs, punishing the most vulnerable just out of sheer spite." Later, the author goes on to say: "Republicans have resisted significant increases in [job] training programs - if this hurts the economy or large numbers of individuals, so be it. First things first: Undermine Obama's presidency." These two quotes dismiss any ideological or policy-related reservations Republicans may have about food stamp programs, instead suggesting that Congressional members of the Republican Party pettily and selfishly roadblock President Obama's policies. She also refers to the Southerland Amendment, which is a part of the new food stamp bill that applies federal welfare work requirements to the food stamp program and allows states to reclaim half of the money saved if residents stop using food stamps, as "bribery."  As a whole, although this article contains interesting historical background on food stamps and some pertinent statistics on the current food stamp program, it is so biased that readers should not view it as an informative source.

My impression of this source is that it is nearly worthless to those seeking to obtain a balanced perspective on the issue of food stamps. It is so blatantly prejudiced and biased towards the Democrats that I believe it is more an example of propaganda than public advocacy, since it makes no attempts at objectivity and contains little to no discussion of the possible drawbacks and problems of the food stamp program. The article is highly narrowcasted towards those with Democratic, liberal, or moralist views. In fact, I think it is even dangerous because of the impetuous tone it takes towards Republican and conservative views on the food stamp issue; the author presents her opinions as though they were fact and they may seem reasonable to the uninformed. This seems very manipulative. The article is well researched in terms of facts and dates, but its obvious partisanship makes me wonder about other, concealed facets of this issue that may not show the author's opinions in a good light. In fact, I had  to look up the Southerland Amendment in other sources, because I knew I could not present an objective view of its purpose when the author only provided such a limited, accusatory stance on it. To those who support cuts to the food stamp program, this article will be infuriating because the author takes such a sardonic attitude towards their views. To those who oppose cuts to the food stamp program, this article will be uncomfortable to read because it will feel like an illegitimate and unfair presentation of their views. No matter a reader's viewpoint, this article should be taken with a grain of salt about the size of the Taj Mahal.