Instructions:
In your search for articles on global politics see if you can identify all 5 of the Types of Bias discussed in the class.
Click on the “Types of Bias Discussion Board” link and find the thread labeled with the appropriate type of bias you have found in “the wild.”
In the appropriate thread provide the MLA Citation for the article as well as an explanation of why you believe it displays the type of bias you have labeled it with.
Complete 5 such entries for 5 different types of Bias
Lastly, respond to 2 classmates’ posts, whether you agree or disagree.
“Types of Bias Discussion Board”
Bias by omission – A pattern of ignoring facts that tend to disprove their belief set. This can be the most damaging bias, especially when the media build a crisis, and then refuse to report facts that oppose their earlier reporting.
Bias by selection of sources – Including more sources/stories from one viewpoint than from another viewpoint. “Experts believe…” “Most people believe…”
Bias by placement – A pattern of placing news stories so as to downplay information supportive of a certain viewpoint. Does a story appear across the top half of the front page, or is it buried back with the obituaries?
Bias by labeling – The use of certain labels can make readers feel a ceratin way about the people in a story. For example “far-right,” “left-wing,” “radicals.”
Bias by spin – Emphasizing certain aspects of a news story in the hope that other aspects will be ignored.
Response 1:
1. Bias by Placement:
Peterson, Hayley. “Inside Sears’ Death Spiral: How an Iconic American Brand Has Been Driven to the Edge of Bankruptcy.” Business Insider, Business Insider, 8 Jan. 2017, www.businessinsider.com/sears-failing-stores-closing-edward-lampert-bankruptcy-chances-2017-1.
I believe that this news article from CNN is a perfect example of bias by placement. Bias by placement puts emphasis on where the story is found and that some news stories can downplay information. CNN tends to lean toward the more democratic views, thus leading to some information being hidden to portray a certain message. Along with this, the article most likely is only stating the ideas of certain people in India, not the majority. I think many people know that CNN hides valuable information in order to get a certain point across which usually is obvious in their articles.
2. Bias by Selection of Sources:
“The World in 2021 – How Global Politics Will Change This Year.” The Guardian, Guardian News and Media, 3 Jan. 2021, www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jan/03/the-world-in-2021-how-global-politics-will-change-this-year.
I believe that this news article from The Guardian is a really great example of Bias by Selection of Sources. This type of Bias normally emphasizes that quantity doesn’t always mean quality. The more sources that they have tends to decrease the reliability of the source. In this article, there are at least 60 paragraphs discussing all sorts of changes within the realm of global politics. While this is a really broad subject and probably should have had different articles, the fact that they use so many sources, also decreases the reliability of the source.
3. Bias by Labeling:
Iliyasov, Marat. “Russia’s Imaginary ‘Radicals’.” OpenDemocracy, 19 Oct. 2020, www.opendemocracy.net/en/global-extremes/russias-imaginary-radicals/.
I believe that this news article from Open Democracy is the perfect example of an article with the bias by labeling concept. In this article it says the term “radicals” at least eight different times. While I feel that using the term here and there is okay, nine times makes it that readers feel ca certain way about the people in the story. Using these terms also makes it that the reader can’t relate in any way to the people talking and can feel attacked in a way depending on the beliefs of the reader.
Response 2:
1. Bias of Omission- Liberal media blasted for moving on from Afghanistan crisis: ‘Their bias is disgusting’ | Fox News This source displays bias of omission for many reasons. For one, it blasts the liberal media for moving on from the Afghanistan crisis. It omits inofrmation that would suggest the exact opposite. And it does not look at it from other possible views. Also it omits positive news about the liberal media’s response to the Afghanistan crisis.
2. Bias by selection of sources- China Urges Japan Not to Intervene in South China Sea – The Diplomat This source displays bias by selection of sources for a few reasons. Fo one, it does not provide a list of other sources in this article. Also it does not consider other possible sources that have a different view. And the article is in favor of one viewpoint oevr another.
3. Bias by placement- Afghanistan: Don’t recognise Taliban regime, resistance urges – BBC News This source displays bias by placement for many reasons. For one, the Afghanistan don’t recognize Taliban regime reistance urges artcile was not placed at the top of the list for important news stories. Also, it was not listed as a major breaking news story on the BBC website.
4. Bias by labeling- China accuses Australia of ‘bullying’ and ‘grossly interfering’ in its internal affairs | Sky News Australia This article demonstrates bias by labeling. For one, it labels Australia a bully for discontinung economic relations with china due to the Chinese communist party. And it does not label china as a bully. there is no harsh language used to describe China and it’s Communist party or it’s economic relations with Australia.
5. Bias by spin- The Detroit News This article only offers one interpretation of Biden and Afghanistan. Also, it does not offer other possible interpretations. It does not consider the possibility that Biden deserves no criticism about Afghanistan that he is getting. There is no positive connotation in this article. There is a lot of negative connotations in this article.[supanova_question]
Topic: Does a picky eating pregnancy indicate a picky eating child. References
Topic: Does a picky eating pregnancy indicate a picky eating child.
References
Beauchamp, G. K., & Mennella, J. A. (2009). Early flavor learning and its impact on later feeding behavior. Journal of Pediatric Gastroenterology & Nutrition, 48(Suppl 1). https://doi.org/10.1097/mpg.0b013e31819774a5
Forestell, C. A., & Mennella, J. A. (2007). Early determinants of fruit and vegetable acceptance. PEDIATRICS, 120(6), 1247–1254. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2007-0858
Mennella, J. A., & Beauchamp, G. K. (2002). Flavor experiences during formula feeding are related to preferences during childhood. Early Human Development, 68(2), 71–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0378-3782(02)00008-7
Taylor, C. M., Wernimont, S. M., Northstone, K., & Emmett, P. M. (2015). Picky/fussy eating in children: Review of definitions, assessment, prevalence and dietary intakes. Appetite, 95, 349–359. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2015.07.026
Yelverton, C. A., Geraghty, A. A., O’Brien, E. C., Killeen, S. L., Horan, M. K., Donnelly, J. M., Larkin, E., Mehegan, J., & McAuliffe, F. M. (2020). Breastfeeding and maternal eating behaviours are associated with child eating behaviours: Findings from the rolo kids study. European Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 75(4), 670–679. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41430-020-00764-7[supanova_question]
Explain the process of arrest. 15 points Criteria Description Explain the process
Explain the process of arrest.
15 points
Criteria Description
Explain the process of arrest.
5. Excellent
15 points
Explanation of the arrest process is clear, concise, and makes connections to current research.
4. Good
13.05 points
Explanation of the arrest process is clear and makes some connections to research.
3. Satisfactory
11.85 points
Explanation of the arrest process is present and clear.
2. Less than Satisfactory
11.1 points
Explanation of the arrest process is missing.
1. Unsatisfactory
0 points
Explanation of the arrest process is vague and inconsistent.
Explain the process of arraignment.
22.5 points
Criteria Description
Explain the process of arraignment.
5. Excellent
22.5 points
Explanation of the arraignment process is clear, concise, and makes connections to current research.
4. Good
19.58 points
Explanation of the arraignment process is present and clear.
3. Satisfactory
17.78 points
Explanation of the arraignment process is clear and makes some connections to research.
2. Less than Satisfactory
16.65 points
Explanation of the arraignment process is vague and inconsistent.
1. Unsatisfactory
0 points
Explanation of the arraignment process is missing.
Explain what occurs during pretrial.
22.5 points
Criteria Description
Explain what occurs during pretrial.
5. Excellent
22.5 points
Explanation of what occurs during pretrial is clear, concise, and makes connections to current research.
4. Good
19.58 points
Explanation of what occurs during pretrial is present and clear.
3. Satisfactory
17.78 points
Explanation of what occurs during pretrial is vague and inconsistent.
2. Less than Satisfactory
16.65 points
Explanation of what occurs during pretrial is clear and makes some connections to research.
1. Unsatisfactory
0 points
Explanation of what occurs during pretrial is missing.
Competency hearing
22.5 points
Criteria Description
Explain what happens if the offender needs a competency hearing, including a definition of competency.
5. Excellent
22.5 points
Explanation of what happens if the offender needs a competency hearing, including a definition of competency is present and clear.
4. Good
19.58 points
Explanation of what happens if the offender needs a competency hearing, including a definition of competency is clear, concise, and makes connections to current research.
3. Satisfactory
17.78 points
Explanation of what happens if the offender needs a competency hearing, including a definition of competency is clear and makes some connections to research.
2. Less than Satisfactory
16.65 points
Explanation of what happens if the offender needs a competency hearing, including a definition of competency is vague and inconsistent.
1. Unsatisfactory
0 points
Explanation of what happens if the offender needs a competency hearing, including a definition of competency is missing.
Assess the role of a psychologist
22.5 points
Criteria Description
Assess the role of a psychologist in a pretrial competency hearing, including the type of assessment tools the psychologist would use.
5. Excellent
22.5 points
Assessment of the role of a psychologist in a pretrial competency hearing, including the type of assessment tools the psychologist would use is clear and makes some connections to research.
4. Good
19.58 points
Assessment of the role of a psychologist in a pretrial competency hearing, including the type of assessment tools the psychologist would use is clear, concise, and makes connections to current research.
3. Satisfactory
17.78 points
Assessment of the role of a psychologist in a pretrial competency hearing, including the type of assessment tools the psychologist would use is vague and inconsistent.
2. Less than Satisfactory
16.65 points
Assessment of the role of a psychologist in a pretrial competency hearing, including the type of assessment tools the psychologist would use is present and clear.
1. Unsatisfactory
0 points
Assessment of the role of a psychologist in a pretrial competency hearing, including the type of assessment tools the psychologist would use is missing.
Thesis Development and Purpose
10.5 points
Criteria Description
Thesis Development and Purpose
5. Excellent
10.5 points
Thesis is comprehensive and contains the essence of the paper. Thesis statement makes the purpose of the paper clear.
4. Good
9.14 points
Thesis is clear and forecasts the development of the paper. Thesis is descriptive and reflective of the arguments and appropriate to the purpose.
3. Satisfactory
8.3 points
Thesis is apparent and appropriate to purpose.
2. Less than Satisfactory
7.77 points
Thesis is insufficiently developed or vague. Purpose is not clear.
1. Unsatisfactory
0 points
Paper lacks any discernible overall purpose or organizing claim.
Argument Logic and Construction
12 points
Criteria Description
Argument Logic and Construction
5. Excellent
12 points
Clear and convincing argument that presents a persuasive claim in a distinctive and compelling manner. All sources are authoritative.
4. Good
10.44 points
Argument shows logical progressions. Techniques of argumentation are evident. There is a smooth progression of claims from introduction to conclusion. Most sources are authoritative.
3. Satisfactory
9.48 points
Sufficient justification of claims is lacking. Argument lacks consistent unity. There are obvious flaws in the logic. Some sources have questionable credibility.
2. Less than Satisfactory
8.88 points
Statement of purpose is not justified by the conclusion. The conclusion does not support the claim made. Argument is incoherent and uses noncredible sources.
1. Unsatisfactory
0 points
Argument is orderly, but may have a few inconsistencies. The argument presents minimal justification of claims. Argument logically, but not thoroughly, supports the purpose. Sources used are credible. Introduction and conclusion bracket the thesis.
Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, language use)
7.5 points
Criteria Description
Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, language use)
5. Excellent
7.5 points
Writer is clearly in command of standard, written, academic English.
4. Good
6.53 points
Prose is largely free of mechanical errors, although a few may be present. The writer uses a variety of effective sentence structures and figures of speech.
3. Satisfactory
5.93 points
Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors distract the reader. Inconsistencies in language choice (register) or word choice are present. Sentence structure is correct but not varied.
2. Less than Satisfactory
5.55 points
Some mechanical errors or typos are present, but they are not overly distracting to the reader. Correct and varied sentence structure and audience-appropriate language are employed.
1. Unsatisfactory
0 points
Surface errors are pervasive enough that they impede communication of meaning. Inappropriate word choice or sentence construction is used.
Paper Format (use of appropriate style for the major and assignment)
7.5 points
Criteria Description
Paper Format (use of appropriate style for the major and assignment)
5. Excellent
7.5 points
All format elements are correct.
4. Good
6.53 points
Appropriate template is used. Formatting is correct, although some minor errors may be present.
3. Satisfactory
5.93 points
Appropriate template is fully used. There are virtually no errors in formatting style.
2. Less than Satisfactory
5.55 points
Template is not used appropriately or documentation format is rarely followed correctly.
1. Unsatisfactory
0 points
Appropriate template is used, but some elements are missing or mistaken. A lack of control with formatting is apparent.
Documentation of Sources
7.5 points
Criteria Description
Documentation of Sources (citations, footnotes, references, bibliography, etc., as appropriate to assignment and style)
5. Excellent
7.5 points
Sources are completely and correctly documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is free of error.
4. Good
6.53 points
Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is mostly correct.
3. Satisfactory
5.93 points
Documentation of sources is inconsistent or incorrect, as appropriate to assignment and style, with numerous formatting errors.
2. Less than Satisfactory
5.55 points
Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, although some formatting errors may be present.
1. Unsatisfactory
0 points
Sources are not documented.[supanova_question]
Population Health part 1
Writing Assignment Help Sources must be published within the last 5 years.Rubric is attached- please address every topic.The purpose of this assignment is to evaluate an at-risk population affected by a population-based health condition:Write a 750-1,000-word paper and include the following.1.Refer to the topic Resource “Data and Statistics (https://www.cdc.gov/cancer/dcpc/data/) for examples of population-based health conditions. Select a population-based health condition (Cancer) and a high-risk group affected by the population-based condition. An example of this would be looking at the prevalence rates of diseases (population-based health condition) in vaccinated children versus groups where parents may withhold vaccinations because of feared side effects (high-risk group).2.Describe the high-risk group and population-based health condition you selected. Explain why this group is considered high-risk.3.Compare the prevalence rate of the selected population-based health condition for this high-risk group between two similar areas (state(NY) to state, country(USA) to country). 4.Evaluate the social determinants that lead to disparities and health outcomes for your selected at-risk population and explain why they differ between your selected population and a population of comparison from a similar area.5.Discuss what evidence-based interventions have been introduced to try and improve the health outcomes for this high-risk population and whether they have been effective.Discuss current electronic or online consumer health information available for the population on the health issue (e.g., the topic Resource, “Find and Compare Nursing Homes, Hospitals and Other Providers Near You”- https://www.medicare.gov/care-compare/?providerType=Hospital [supanova_question]
Population Health part 1
Sources must be published within the last 5 years.Rubric is attached- please address every topic.The purpose of this assignment is to evaluate an at-risk population affected by a population-based health condition:Write a 750-1,000-word paper and include the following.1.Refer to the topic Resource “Data and Statistics (https://www.cdc.gov/cancer/dcpc/data/) for examples of population-based health conditions. Select a population-based health condition (Cancer) and a high-risk group affected by the population-based condition. An example of this would be looking at the prevalence rates of diseases (population-based health condition) in vaccinated children versus groups where parents may withhold vaccinations because of feared side effects (high-risk group).2.Describe the high-risk group and population-based health condition you selected. Explain why this group is considered high-risk.3.Compare the prevalence rate of the selected population-based health condition for this high-risk group between two similar areas (state(NY) to state, country(USA) to country). 4.Evaluate the social determinants that lead to disparities and health outcomes for your selected at-risk population and explain why they differ between your selected population and a population of comparison from a similar area.5.Discuss what evidence-based interventions have been introduced to try and improve the health outcomes for this high-risk population and whether they have been effective.Discuss current electronic or online consumer health information available for the population on the health issue (e.g., the topic Resource, “Find and Compare Nursing Homes, Hospitals and Other Providers Near You”- https://www.medicare.gov/care-compare/?providerType=Hospital[supanova_question]
Population Health part 1
Sources must be published within the last 5 years.Rubric is attached- please address every topic.The purpose of this assignment is to evaluate an at-risk population affected by a population-based health condition:Write a 750-1,000-word paper and include the following.1.Refer to the topic Resource “Data and Statistics (https://www.cdc.gov/cancer/dcpc/data/) for examples of population-based health conditions. Select a population-based health condition (Cancer) and a high-risk group affected by the population-based condition. An example of this would be looking at the prevalence rates of diseases (population-based health condition) in vaccinated children versus groups where parents may withhold vaccinations because of feared side effects (high-risk group).2.Describe the high-risk group and population-based health condition you selected. Explain why this group is considered high-risk.3.Compare the prevalence rate of the selected population-based health condition for this high-risk group between two similar areas (state(NY) to state, country(USA) to country). 4.Evaluate the social determinants that lead to disparities and health outcomes for your selected at-risk population and explain why they differ between your selected population and a population of comparison from a similar area.5.Discuss what evidence-based interventions have been introduced to try and improve the health outcomes for this high-risk population and whether they have been effective.Discuss current electronic or online consumer health information available for the population on the health issue (e.g., the topic Resource, “Find and Compare Nursing Homes, Hospitals and Other Providers Near You”- https://www.medicare.gov/care-compare/?providerType=Hospital[supanova_question]