|
|
|
Role
of Media in Tobacco Control
|
|
1)Accuracy- This article appears accurate, supported, and verified.
There are editors who have their credentials listed and can be contacted.The
oncology department of the University of Pennsylvania publishes this site.
|
|
2)Authority- Although an individual is not
give author credit, this page reads like a newspaper article without
a by-line. Like a newspaper, editors back it. The page is sponsored by
the University of Pennsylvania and has current links throughout the University
site.The trustees of the University
have issued a copyright.The page
also cites authorities with greater reputations than themselves, for example,
the National Cancer Institute.
|
|
3)Objectivity-The intention of this page is to sway the opinion of the
public about Tobacco Control.It
is less of a persuasive article than an informative article. The page is
designed to make the public aware of World No-Tobacco Day.It
is biased in favor of having the media make the public more aware of the
need to have the media support the efforts to control and prevent tobacco
use.The author intends to create
public awareness of the need to actively pursue tobacco control, and it
does so by citing references to the information it is posting.It
informs the reader how to become more aware, rather than belabor its own
opinions on the subject matter.
|
|
4)Currency-The article itself is not current, because it refers to an event
in 1994.The references for further
study are current. The University Links are current and the sidebar links
have been updated as recently as April of 2001.
|
|
5)Coverage-The page merely covers the need for collaboration between public
health workers and the media. It is based around the agenda that was to
be presented at the 1994 World Tobacco Day.Since
the material is cited, it can act as a launching point for other student
research on the desired topic.The
material does not delve into great detail on the subject but rather serves
as a serious attempt to create public awareness of their medical opinions.
|
|
6)Recommendations- Although the event the article refers to has passed,
I would recommend students to this page to make them both aware of the
event, and to follow the resources for further in depth coverage of the
topic by highly qualified organizations.
|
|
Health
Hazards of Tobacco
|
|
1)Accuracy- The site seemed to be accurate and reliable. However,
the very little of the information was cited. There was no mention
of an editor, but there was a message from the director of the World Health
Organization for World No-Tobacco Day 1996. It would be difficult
to prove or disprove many of the statistics given on the site. |
|
2)Authority- There did not appear to be an author for the page.
The information was used to promote the sponsors view on smoking.
The sponsor appeared to be the World Health Organization for World No-Tobacco
Day. I have never heard of this organization before, therefore I
don't know how reputable they really are. There is a link to a message
from the organizations leader, but once again, he is a relative unknown
to me.
|
|
3)Objectivity- The page shows a great deal of bias. The purpose
of the site is to get others to understand the harmful effects of smoking.
This is done by giving many, many examples of data from research in this
area. However, as stated earlier, there were very few if any citations.
Unlike many other sites, there was no advertising on this page.
|
|
4)Currency- The page is not dated, but the majority of the information
ranged from 1993-1996. It appeared to be last updated in 1996, just
prior to the No-Smoking Day they were pushing for throughout the page.
All of the links were in the time period of 1993-1996 also. It seemed
as though there was a big push to get this information out before the 1996
No-Smoking Day, but soon forgotten afterwards.
|
|
5)Coverage- The main topics on the page are the harmful effects of
smoking and how your life expectancy is shortened if you smoke. It
spends very little time explaining what I thought was the purpose of the
page, which is asking for a commitment from sports and culture to refrain
from accepting advertising money from tobacco manufacturers. I would
have been much more interested in hearing how much money is generated by
sports and culture from the tobacco industries. There is too much
repetition of the same type of data about the harmful effects of smoking
in 100 different ways.
|
|
6)Recommendations- I do not recommend this site for student users.
There is too much data in the first couple pages for any student to stop.
If this were the case, the real purpose of the page would never be delivered
since it is on the last paragraph of the last page.
|
|
Secondhand
Smoke
|
|
1)Accuracy- There is no evidence at this site
to establish any reliability to the content of the site.There
are innumerable spelling, typing, and grammatical errors.The
essays are structured and written very poorly.Hypotheses
are stated and analogies are stated, but neither is clearly substantiated.
|
|
2)Authority-Although an author (unknown to me)is given and the pages are
labeled as copyrighted materials, this is a dubious claim to authority.
The author does give a dot com location, but it is not linked. The
author does not make many claims to validate his own authority. He
states his own personal opinions as if they are well known facts.
There is no mention of an editor, nor are there any links to the author.
The author seems to expect the reader to start off sympathetic to his cause,
because the rationales he uses are stated as though they are public knowledge.
Even when he claims to know "more" than the average Joe Public, he expresses
support from all incited sources.
|
|
3)Objectivity-The information is blatantly biased. The page is not
only designed to sway the readers' opinions, but it also includes many
samples of steps of action to take. The samples are written in the exact
writing style of the author, and are clearly not examples of works of any
other authority. The real clue of the agenda of the author (to promote
smoking with the freedom of regulations) is the single advertisement banner
sponsor. The sponsor is an advertisement page to selling items relating
to smoking. The background is the same and it appears as if the true
agenda is to promote products through swaying public opinion.
|
|
4)Currency-The only dates that are given are those listed as copyright
dates. There is no support to substantiate copyright claims. These are
from the mid nineties. There are no update claims. The links
are all internal to the page, or external to the banner sponsor. The pictures
were not published well and do not show up on Internet Explorer.
|
|
5)Coverage-The issues covered on this page are quite extensive, if not
substantiated.The author gives first
a series of personal essays refuting a wide variety of arguments against
smoking. These include such topics as, second hand smoke, cancer, heart
disease, and addiction. Secondly, he sets up a series of parallels that
attempt to persuade the reader that smokers are persecuted like other factions
of society including the Afro-American population and the Jewish population.Lastly
he gives a variety of suggestions on actions a smoker can take to actively
protect smokers’ rights.Each issue
is approached in moderate detail, with no substantial support to back up
any claims each section makes.
|
