Weekly Assignment One
The current administration brings up a lot of controversy, but the most interesting part of discussion is President Trump’s “Wall”. As a proactive citizen looking into the minor and major details of this notion I have come across helpful articles and more confusing articles. Reading two different articles with a analytical lens allowed me to see the valid statements, but also those that were inconsistent.
In an article from TownHall they report a CBS poll finding that 51% of Americans believe the building a wall along the border is a good idea. The issue I have with this article is that they never state how the information was attained, who was polled, and what the results really mean. At first the statistics seem to be convincing until there is no further explanation as to what the statistics represent. There is no proof that the poll wasn’t biased but there is nothing to show that it wasn’t. Concerning for a reader trying to find out more information on a hot topic.
On the other hand, an article provided by The New York Times explains why the border wall could waste billions of dollars. Stating that an investigation by the Government Accountability Office found many holes in the Customs and Border Protection’s building plan for the wall. This statement is backed up by the inconsideration of topography, land ownership, and where the problem areas are located.
The difference between the credibility of these two sources is how in depth the explanations and reasoning goes. Not to mention that the Times article frequently cites sources and provides the credentials of those who are quoted. TownHall gave credit to CBS for the poll and only used one other source, being a senator that they gave no further background knowledge about. This led me to wonder where exactly all of their statements and statistics were coming from.
Shockingly, the “Wall” discussion is very controversial and people are looking for explanations. In order to gain the readers attention there has to be credibility. Though flaws can be found in any article if you look close enough, the gaps in the TownHall article were too obvious compared to the possible holes in the Times article.
