Evaluating “The Edmonton Journal,” and Bias Activity, Matt White

I chose to evaluate "The Edmonton Journal" because it's local and it's reliable. Using the tips found on page 99 I came to the following conclusions.

• The overall content and purpose of this website is news. It is there to inform the public. It includes news from many authors and covers a variety of subjects. You can check for accuracy by comparing the articles with other news related sites, as well as doing some of your own research into the subject through reliable web pages. If you come across anything inaccurate, you are able to comment on the article, or contact an editor via email.
• Comparing this site with others of the same nature is a good way to check for accuracy. It's rare that you would find articles the differ greatly from articles posted on other reliable sites.
• The authors themselfes are professional journalists who answer to a code of ethics. Any citizen partcipation or freelance writing is noted, so readers are always aware of the source.
• Lastly, the links used on this site usually lead to other rebutalble websites, but the user should always be aware of where they're getting their information from. Just because you have been linked from a reliable site, doesn't mean you're going to one

Bias Activity

I chose to focus more on the initial bias of an article instead on focusing on the entire piece.

In The National Post article, there is strong evidence of bias in the word use and balance. This article has many subtle words that direct the reader towards the feeling of “Republications bad; Democrats good.” In the first paragraph the word “derailed” is used to describe the republications effort to stop the bill from passing. As if they are causing a train crash by voicing their opinion or doing what they feel is right. The second paragraph then states that Obama’s health plan aims to “provide cover for 31 million uninsured Americans and crack down on exorbitant premium hikes by insurers.” This does a great job of painting a lovely picture of Obama saving all those poor and helpless Americans from the big bad capitalist giants. Using these two examples so high up in the article instantly gives us a feeling on the topic. We are steered in the direction of favoring this health care bill before we even have a chance to dissect what we’re reading. The article then goes on to give facts supporting the health plan and exhibiting the massive expenses of health care today. It’s not until we’re roughly three quarters of the way through the article do we begin to see an attempt at providing a balanced piece. Lastly, I thought adding the fact that “The United States spends more than double what Britain, France and Germany do per person on health care,” was kind of funny since the article was written by Tangi Quemener, Agence France-Presse.

In the Fox News article, even the headline itself contains a hint of bias: “Controversial Health Plan Provision Aims to Protect Consumers.” Using the word “controversial” in the headline immediately gives the impression that this health plan has flaws and people are debating on it. As the first paragraph takes form, we are given the information that “Republicans have been invited to post their own ideas for reform,” as well as the general public, on a White House website. Why is there a special mention of republicans? The second paragraph then begins with “One of the proposals Republicans are expected to take aim at is the idea of a rate hike authority that will oversee insurance premiums.” I’m already seeing a problem with this new health plan. Surprisingly, the rest of the article does a descent job of providing both sides of the argument. Using examples and quotes from both sides gives the reader a fair view of the issue.

I stumbled upon the One News Page website and this article through a link on The Edmonton Sun website and I’m quite glad I did. I think writing shorter articles is something not often taken advantage of. The article is in fact so short, that I’ll let you be the judge of whether or not it contains bias.

“Barack Obama today revealed the health care proposal he’ll be taking into bipartisan meetings this week, a $950 billion bill that hews closer to the Senate’s model than the House’s. The plan seeks to resolve some of the contentious issues between the two bills, cutting, for example, the special Medicaid...”