Flor Pierina Rincon: 5-Step Critical Analysis Process

 

            The following critical analysis was done on Talya Lusardi's post of David Adam's "SARS-COV-2 Isn't Going Away, Experts Predict", an article posted on January 25, 2021 on The Scientist magazine. This article is concerned on how politicians have tried "to schedule an end to the pandemic" while scientists claim that the virus will not simply end, but that it will become an "endemic disease", just like the typical colds we catch a couple of times a year (Adam 2021). I agree with Talya's overall judgement about the unbiased information presented in the article from credible sources, which is why I defend the publication of the article, However, I do believe that there are hints of Adam's biased voice against the British Prime Minister, Boris Johnson.

Description: The article starts off by detailing some of British Prime Minister's, Boris Johnson's, phrases in his speeches as he predicts that the COVID-19 pandemic will eventually come to an end. Adam quotes several of these phrases, demonstrating his research on Johnson's speeches and the overall opinion of the British government at the face of the pandemic. Adam then continues by debunking Johnson's pandemic-free forecasts by citing several informed researchers and scientists. Clearly, he interviews Kate Baker, an infectious disease researcher at the University of Liverpool, Graham Medley, an infectious disease modeler at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, Jennie Lavine, a biologist at Emory University in Atlanta, and Marc Veldhoen, an immunologist at Lisbon University. These were all Adam's interview subjects for this piece as he includes direct quotations from all of them to demonstrate their perspectives on the virus. One thing that I see is missing from the story is the perspective of other global leader, as it is focused on the UK.

Analysis: At the beginning of the article, Adam uses strong inflammatory language in regard to Johnson's promises of a world without Coronavirus. This is seen through a mocking diction to describe the Prime Minister's speeches through phrases such as "never one to use two words when six will do", "verbal contortions", and "verbose promises" (Adam, 2021). However, the information that is presented to back up Adam's initial statement on COVID-19 eventually becoming an endemic is done so in a much more serious manner. Adam attributes all of his sources, which are all extremely credible due to their backgrounds on science and disease research. In addition, all of these sources come from different parts of the world, which makes the information presented completely unbiased and direct. In fact, Mr. Medley, one of the researchers interviewed for the article, is actually a health adviser to the UK government. This includes another perspective to the piece. Yet, there are still voices from the government that are not heard; the government's side of the story is based on Johnson's speeches instead of actual interviews and other political leaders' opinions on the pandemic are not included.

Interpretation: In my opinion, Adam uses inflammatory language to present Johnson's perspective on the pandemic to mock his promises and elicit an angry response from the readers. He does this so that the readers can truly understand that the government should not be trusted at all times, as sometimes their promises are base-less and misleading. By contrasting his sarcastic tone to describe Johnson's assurances at the beginning of the article, with his much more serious voice when presenting the actual scientific evidence and information, Adam makes the reader perceive the UK government's side of the debate as being laughable and false and the scientific side of the debate serious and important. Even though he presents bias in regard to the Prime Minister, the information that he presents is completely unbiased and credible. The fact that he includes perspectives from around the world makes his thesis on the pandemic becoming an endemic much more credible and fairer; many voices are heard from credible researchers around the globe. In addition, the fact that he included a researcher that serves as a health advisor to the British government makes the article much fairer. However, many voices from the government should have been heard with direct interviews for them to explain their ideas about the pandemic. International leaders should have also been heard to make his opening statement about "politicians" predicting an end to the pandemic much more credible. The lack of political representation makes the whole article look one-sided as some politicians may not hold the same beliefs as Johnson. Yet, ultimately, the information he presents to demonstrate how COVID-19 won't simply disappear is very compelling and reliable.

Evaluation: I believe that the message behind this piece, in general, is very educational and credible. Adam's interview subjects were all important researchers dedicated to investigating COVID-19 around the world. Their attributed quotes make the piece reliable to readers everywhere. Therefore, I defend Adam's thesis as he states that COVID-19 will "stick around", as he includes the voices of many important people of the epidemiology field. The piece in itself follows many newsworthy values as it is timely and impactful. However, the only downside that I see is that Adam fails to include more voices of not only the British government, but political leaders from all over the world. This makes the piece lose a little bit of fairness.. This is why I believe that Adam would have simply cut out the beginning in which he uses his biased voice to describe Johnson's perspectives on the end of the pandemic and when he generalizes that all political leaders promise the same things. All in all, the information of the piece is very valid and educational, which is why I defend it. However, Adam should have stuck to his thesis instead of including his own bias in terms of politicians, specifically Boris Johnson. 

Engagement: As Campbell et. al. state, "we must actively work to create a media world that helps serve democracy" (Campbell et. al., 2014). Therefore, I believe that this article does serve democracy as it opens people's eyes to a reality that may not be made visible by the government. However, to make Adam's article a bit fairer, we can try to contact him and ask him about the government's take on the issue. We can even create a blog in which all of us can talk about how the governments in our own countries present COVID-19 to the nation.

Sources

Adam, D. (2021, January 25). Sars-cov-2 isn't going away, experts predict. Retrieved February 10, 2021,            from https:??www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/sars-cov-2-isnt-going-away-experts-predict-68386

Cambell, R., Martin, C. r., & Fabos, B. (2014), Media & culture: Mass communication in a digital age.             Boston: Bedford/St. Martin's.