Today’s blog post is regarding this week’s assignment, which was to visit each source online, evaluate its credibility based on the guidelines set in Criteria to Evaluate the Credibility of WWW Resources, and draft a blog post that briefly states a potential impact of unrestricted web publishing through mass media as it relates to this article.
More than ever, a spot light is being shined on healthcare reform in the United States and the great things it can do for costs. However, the spot light is not being shined as brightly on impoverished Americans, who even with reforms to Medicare programs, are still at a loss in receiving consistent, affordable, quality healthcare. Many of those deemed as impoverished in this country are women with children. Surprisingly, there are more Americans who are between the ages of 19-64 who do not have children or dependents and are overlooked for that fact, leaving them unable to get the assistance they need to seek medical resources.
The New York Times, and the Editorial Board, both have a long standing proven track record of reporting valid and accurate news and deemed by the public to be one of the more credible sources of news reporting today. Even though this article did not have cited sources or links to refer to specifically, each of these journalists can be considered to be a reporter-source based on their credentials alone. Even though they all have managed to build up their credibility via the sources they rely on for their information, the great track record they have established is validated by their basis of knowledge and work experience. Kovach and Kosentiel (2010) remind us that, “credentials alone are insufficient.” Since specific sources could not be found explaining where facts and figures in the article came from, more time must be taken to look more closely at the author(s).
Strictly relating to this article, the potential impact of unrestricted web publishing through mass media can be detrimental to the effectiveness of relaying information, the credibility to The New York Times, and to the authors. A website that was established and centered around reporting news accurately that prides itself in publishing works created by well-established journalists has more potential as being seen as credible than this article being post on a personal homepage, by a company on a commercial site, or a professional site. Such sites tend to be filled with bias and special/personal agendas and may detract from a credible publication like this above mentioned article.
For this blog post, I chose an online article published by the New York Times titled, “It’s not only Mothers and Children.” It mentions that even with changes to the current healthcare reform law, people who earn too little to buy subsidized coverage are exempt from receiving quality healthcare. Affected are over 8 million Americans who live in 26 (mostly Republican-led) states.
What I found to be unique about this article, unlike other articles I reviewed, is that this article does not just have one author. This article is an editorial piece that was written by The New York Times Editorial Board. The Editorial Board consists of 17 journalists with wide ranging areas of education, expertise, and work experience. Do to the extensive credentials and amount of journalists involved, here is a link to their bios:
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/opinion/editorialboard.html#AndrewRosenthal
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/opinion/editorialboard.html#AndrewRosenthal
The New York Times, and the Editorial Board, both have a long standing proven track record of reporting valid and accurate news and deemed by the public to be one of the more credible sources of news reporting today. Even though this article did not have cited sources or links to refer to specifically, each of these journalists can be considered to be a reporter-source based on their credentials alone. Even though they all have managed to build up their credibility via the sources they rely on for their information, the great track record they have established is validated by their basis of knowledge and work experience. Kovach and Kosentiel (2010) remind us that, “credentials alone are insufficient.” Since specific sources could not be found explaining where facts and figures in the article came from, more time must be taken to look more closely at the author(s).
Strictly relating to this article, the potential impact of unrestricted web publishing through mass media can be detrimental to the effectiveness of relaying information, the credibility to The New York Times, and to the authors. A website that was established and centered around reporting news accurately that prides itself in publishing works created by well-established journalists has more potential as being seen as credible than this article being post on a personal homepage, by a company on a commercial site, or a professional site. Such sites tend to be filled with bias and special/personal agendas and may detract from a credible publication like this above mentioned article.
THE EDITORIAL BOARD. "It's Not Only Mothers and Children." New York Times. N.p., 12 Oct. 2013. Web. 13 Oct. 2013. <http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/13/opinion/sunday/its-not-only-mothers-and-children.html>.
I am so glad you wrote something on healthcare reform!
ReplyDeleteI had no idea that with all the changes that over 8 million people still will not be able to get access to healthcare. That's unbelievable! The reform is either painted as right, or totally wrong, there never seems to be a middle of the road report. And what you found, seems like a middle ground for a critique.
I also found it really interesting about how there are 17 people on an editorial board. The idea of 17 people working together for one article is astounding! I'd have to look up that process, seems like that is too many people, but awesome that it is so big for one piece!
Interesting post, Lauren. I applaud you for taking the time to look into the editorial board and check out its members. I'm also glad that you quoted Kovach and Rosenstiel to make the point that credentials alone do not merit credibility. This is something really important.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I'm a little confused. You say that there were no links in the article, but I did find a few. There are also other sources that are not linked but they are mentioned, like the Kaiser Family Foundation. I would have liked to see you assess all these different sources.