- Informative vs superficial
This article is informative as it discusses whether the present Secretive is still capable of protecting the present President despite the cut in the budget and the rise in the threats against the African- American president. It is a news article which is based on facts and something we can relate to.
- Accurate and truthful vs False and deceptive
Taking into considerations the variety of sources it has included, it can be said that this article is accurate and truthful. For example, it quotes the Congressional Research Service report of August 2009. It also quotes Ronald Kessler who recently released a book on Secret service. It also mentions a study by Simon Wiesenthal Center, telling how internet has increased the threats against the president. The facts mentioned are accurate and whether the Secret Service is inefficient is in the reader’s hand to decide.
- Objective vs Biased
It is objective. Although the article talked how the internal congressional report was leaked to The Boston Globe and what it had mentioned. It went through the whole article discussing how the threats have increased against Obama. It hardly talked about whether the secret agency was actually inefficient or any evidences supporting it. But, it mentioned in the end that The Secret Agency had denied that The Boston Globe was not accurate. So, the reporter was objective but did not actually talk about The Secret Agency’s inefficiency. It did not go for or against that fact because he had nothing to support it.
- Pluralistic vs Insular viewpoint
It has pluralistic viewpoint because it took information from various resources like the repot and the study and the book.
- Balanced vs weighted side
It is balanced. It is not supporting anyone in anyway. It is not blaming anyone. IT did not go against The Secret Agency, but it quote the agency saying that the information presented by The Boston Globe was not accurate. It discussed the reasons as to why the threats against the president had risen, but it did not blame the secret agency for its inability to protect because frankly there is no evidence.
No comments:
Post a Comment