After reading several articles on two of Tulsa Oklahoma's most popular new station. I finally found one that would have enough substance for me to be able to make an accurate evaluation. The article was titled “Oklahoma House Resurrects Bill to Arm School Teachers”. It wasn't very long and length like all the articles I found.
I read over the article several times. After utilizing the five strategies for critical reading skim, reflect, read, evaluate, and express your judgment. I broke the article down to three Main fallacies.The three fallacies are clarity, evidence and neutrality.
Here are my findings on the article. First I must say the story wasn't very clear for someone who was just hearing about this topic. I would like to consider myself semi informed on this topic. The article didn't get any clear date as to when to expect a verdict. The only new information that was convey to us is. The Sapulpa Republican Representative is resurfacing a bill.
The Bill allows specially trained teachers to carry guns in the classroom. The article even mentions why the bill is so important to get past at this time. The article claims that it is because of the tragedy in Newtown Connecticut.Secondly the article was very shallow and had no solid information. The reporter explains that the representative resurrected the bill by separating the old bill. They do not tell you what the old bill was.
The Author does not tell you what was removed or separated from the old bill. They do not notify us if any new information or details was added to the bill. The article is also missing what kind of training the teachers would receive. How the teachers will carry and secure the guns.
Some positive features of the article are. The article stated that the bill pass the house both times. The first time the chairman declined to hear it.Although they gave no excuse why the chairman decided not to hear it. Lastly the article had no neutrality.
The article was one sided. The article also lack any other possible resource to protect children who are at school. Like many of the other stories I reviewed. The article didn't offer any repercussions to having guns in school.
They did not provide any proof that guns in school protect children. The article also quoted only pro guns in the classroom representative. They did not have any references from anyone on the opposing side. Leaving me to believe the persuasion of the news article is they want teachers to carry guns.The author did not make available any of the bill to review or any documentation.
In conclusion this article was not clear. The article lacked evidence. The article was very one sided and had no neutrality. The article left questions to someone who was very familiar with the topic. I could only assume someone who is reading the argument for the first time how they could be confused. It is important to make distinctions when undertaking a critical evaluation to decipher all key points .
It also allows you to have a full understanding of the topic. I think that it is much harder to evaluate a story like this when it is not in its written format. The main reason I say this is because, you need to actually be able to visually see the numbers. It is also much easier to review the information over again if it is written. If I had to evaluate this article via television or radio broadcast.
I would either record it or YouTube the broadcasting so I could take notes.
