When I first read �New Republic: The Wilting Climate Change Debate,� I rated the story poorly on NewsTrust, as far as sources and fairness, and I commented that there is little evidence to support the bold and often sarcastic claims made in the piece. Although I realize that this is an opinion piece, coding this story has made even clearer just how biased and poorly supported this writer makes his arguments. Among other things, I coded for the types of sources in the story, the writer�s tone, how much sarcastic, opinionated language the writer used, and how often the writer supported his arguments with substantive evidence. After reviewing my coding, I could see that almost 80 percent of the paragraphs in this story were colored with rude or sarcastic opinions that were almost never supported with any evidence like data or reports. The author quotes heavily from the anti-climate change side, but only does so to bash these politicians. He also does not provide enough comment from the pro-climate change scientists or politicians who could substantiate his argument. Overall, this editorial is not just biased and poorly sourced, but it is not convincing because there is a lack of evidential support for the claims the author makes.
0 komentar:
Posting Komentar