User:KatieHinrichs/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
CNN effect

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I have chosen the CNN effect after reading in Chapter 3 about the filter bubble. The filter bubble occurs when people are exposed to different information whether it's via social media, television, or through their own searching - which could lead to social, political, and cultural consequences. (Humphreys, 2016, p. 48) It's important because the filter bubble has social, political, and cultural consequences. Such consequences are narrow perspectives and limited information literacy. CNN was the first 24/7 news outlet even before the creation of social media and one could say it was a catalyst for our culture's desire to have news available at all times which may have lead to the creation of more outlets. Most importantly, the CNN effect became a "thing" because the videos/images led policy makers and individuals to take action much quicker before due to the exposure of the news.

My primary impression of the article is that it lacked varying and current perspectives.

Lead section
The lead section is short but I thought it was appropriate allowing the audience to get a broad overview of what is the "CNN effect." Unfortunately, I don't think the lead section did a good enough job connecting the article's major sections.

Content
The content of the article is relevant to the topic, however, there is a great opportunity for the article to have additional perspectives and depth. Especially in today's media climate, a contributor to the article can expand how the CNN effect has been influential not only during natural disasters but also in today's current climate of social injustice. I do appreciate the historical background and research presented (the research could have been unpacked more OR an additional perspective provided within that area too).

Tone and Balance
I thought the article was going to be presented with more bias but the contributor did a good job keeping it neutral. I think by not including current perspectives helps the article stay more "neutral", after all, who is going to get offended by the article mentioning natural disasters as evidence for the CNN effect vs. social inequity.

Sources and References
More sources and perspectives would have been helpful throughout the article. Overall, I thought the article would have been two to three times longer in length.

Organization and writing quality
The research section could have used a stronger introduction in order for that information to be more effective. I found myself a little lost trying to connect the dots until I got to the end of that section. Like I mentioned before, additional perspectives or current information could have added more sections that help educate/support the article.

Talk page discussion
I believe this article isn't having any conversations because of the lack of additional perspectives and current events.