Day 3

It's Day 3 of of the media analysis project, and I'm heading to the newspaper. Since my parents don't get a newspaper every day, this might be a rare chance - I'm hoping they'll bring home a New York Times sometime this weekend. The newspaper I'm using is The Boston Globe, but the article is from wire service The Associated Press. Here goes:

"High Court Refuses to Block Texas Abortion Law." Mark Sherman, Associated Press (Boston Globe). November 20, 2013

This article is about the recent Supreme Court ruling on Texas's new abortion laws, passed in July. It is about a third of a newspaper page long. The article contains some background information on the abortion laws and the challenges some groups have posed to the law in court, but the background info is somewhat confusing. The article is seemingly about a single provision of the abortion law (one that requires abortion doctors who work in clinics to have admitting privileges at hospitals), but this fact is not emphasized and the first time I read it through, I was under the impression that the court had conducted a trial on the entire law. The description of how the law was challenged was also somewhat convoluted. Additional information about the rest of the law and clearer language on the legal challenges would be helpful to readers. The article includes seven to nine direct and indirect quotations. More than half, however, are from leaders of the opposition to the abortion law, and these quotes are the longest and most detailed. This suggests a bias towards the opposition to the abortion law, most of whom are Democrats or liberals. The article, however, is an example of objective reporting; there is no pronounced bias in the way the information is delivered.

After yesterday's article, it was a relief to read this more moderate, objective article - though I was disappointed that the main quotes were from liberal sources. Rick Perry, the governor of Texas who signed the law, was only briefly quoted. To present a more objective view, the author of the article should have included information on the background of the law and its intended purpose. The format of the article was a bit confusing - I had to read it several times to understand the process of appeals the provision went through and the results of the law. However, the article contained valuable, solid information. This is certainly a valid and mostly objective source, although I would recommend that readers seek out one or two other sources about the Texas law in order to find out more about the purpose of the law and its background, especially since this article concerns only one provision of the law.

All the sources I have chosen so far have been biased towards a liberal viewpoint - I was hoping today's article would be more moderate. Tomorrow, on to conservative talk radio!