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.
