Reading The Media - 2 Parts in One...

Article 1 - December 8, 2008
CNN: Obama still must fill key positions, possibly with Republicans
Article link: http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/12/08/obama.cabinet/index.html

• Is the information in a given article accurate?

The information in this article is accurate as far ask I know, considering the source of where this article comes from. CNN is extremely credible, and is looked on by the United States and the world as an objective news source.

• Is there missing context that might undermine the premise of a given article or television segment?

I felt this article did not fully focus on the issue from a republican perspective. I thought that this article was objective in many ways, but I think it would have been more effective to get more opinions on how actual republicans feel.

• Which experts are quoted--and, in turn, who isn't allowed to give their opinion what does this leave out?

Quoted in this article is presidential elect, Barack Obama, California governer, Arnold Swatchnager, John Podesta (transition chief).

• When TV news shows (or newspaper/internet editorials) feature a point/counterpoint debate, what political spectrum is offered?

The media generally takes a more liberal/democratic/left side bias. Although the news is suppose to be objective, Obama does not seem to "get checked" by the media as much because they are his supporters.

• Is the selected media simply reinforcing the status quo on a given topic, even though there may be no reason to assume that it is correct?

There is truth to these articles, however it does lead one to believe that republicans are causeing more of an uproar than they are. I don't really see any of the republican point of view.

New Questions:
How do other Republicans feel?
Why are there no real quotes from republican politicians asking to, or rather giving opinions about Obama's choices for cabinet positions?
Why does it really matter for republicans to be in the democratic presidents cabinet?
I agree with Barack Obama's quote that says, "What I was most concerned with was whether or not they can serve the interests of the American people". Why does this not seem to apply in this situation?


** I feel that this article is credible, yet it slants the situation and seems to make it more controversial than it is, insofar as idealisticly in a democratic president's cabinet would be democratic representatives. I think this this article can be enhanced by giving more factual views on the way republicans really feel. Credible sources are used, but a whole entire group is left out.
Article 2
Dog Left Outside Freezes To Sidewalk - WISN MILWAUKEE - December 5, 2008
Article Link: http://www.wisn.com/cnn-news/18214694/detail.html

• Is the information in a given article accurate?

This article seems accurate. It is coming from a prominent Television news source in Milwaukee, WI.

• Is there missing context that might undermine the premise of a given article or television segment?

I was actually pleasantly surprised because I thought this article seemed to be as unbiased as it could be.

• Which experts are quoted--and, in turn, who isn't allowed to give their opinion what does this leave out?

Todd Wagner, the neighbor, Carey Payne, with the Sheboygan Humane Society.

• When TV news shows (or newspaper/internet editorials) feature a point/counterpoint debate, what political spectrum is offered?

This article is geared toward humanities and humane treatment of animals

• Is the selected media simply reinforcing the status quo on a given topic, even though there may be no reason to assume that it is correct?

The media is simply sharing the information that is ethically right. In this case, the dog was being treated poorly, and was left out to freeze, regardless of the situation.

New Questions:
* How was the dogs behavior to influence this type of treatment?
* How does the dog act at the human society and with the prospective adopters?
* Did the woman have any other pets?
* Why did the neighbor not say anything before?

*** Honestly, I was very impressed with this article and the way it really did relay the facts. It referenced both sides of the story which was definitely a positive. They did touch on the behavior of the dog, not that it justified the treatment of the dog, but it gave the other side of the token. Additionally, they have quotes and information from an expert at the human society and not just a nosy neighbor, which showed credibility.