The NPR organization and its stories are written by authors of varying credibility. I researched briefly about the credibility of NPR, and most people seem to find it a reliable source for information.
I read the article about climate change. The author wrote his own opinion about climate change, and had facts to support his opinion. I do agree with the point he was making, that humans triggered climate change as an accident. I also believe that humans need to recognize that global warming is happening, and we need to do as much as we can about that.
I read the climate change article. It is a very intriguing way to define blame on humans for climate change. The way he specifies that the blame is because of our inaction after knowing the impact of our action and less for our initial actions is a point of view that is new to me. In regards to his credibility, his work and credentials are not in environmental science, so that may be a draw back. But, this article was about perspective, so I think he is credible enough for this type of article.
I read the article titled "White House: We Have a Beef with GMO Regulations"; I believe that the article is a reliable source of information because NPR is credible and widely followed, and many statistics from well-known sources, such as the Center for Science in the Public Interest, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Environmental Protection Agency, and the Food and Drug Administration were included. I found the article to be interesting because it expanded my knowledge of GMOs by discussing the controversy regarding genetically modified organisms and new measures that are currently being attempted.
I read the article about global warming from the Npr news section. I couldnt find information on the author, but Npr is typically a reliable source when it comes to credible articles and news. The article was interesting and brought up many important facts that should be recognized as humans come to grips with global warming.
NPR is accounted as fairly reliable; however, NPR, like many news places are slightly biased as it is easy to spin the information in the most pleasing way that person sees fit. All in all, though, the article would still provide a sense of awareness and bring to your attention some general controversies in the GMO world. The best thing to do would be cross reference that information and do a little more digging to see if the information you found was reliable. The article regarding GMO's did not explain in great detail some of the controversies, but as previously stated, definitely brings a new found light and governing practices that surround the GMO world.
NPR as a whole is considered reliable although it can also be viewed as biased. The majority of their articles lean to a liberal perspective and often time skew their arguments so. Although, they do include reliable information mostly from well known credible sources. However, many times their articles are in fact opinion based and little facts presented. I read the first article on Climate Change. I do think that the author presented an interesting viewpoint with good information. I still personally believe that the Earth goes through cycles of climate change and that the process has only been sped up my mankind's carbon footprint.
Reading the article on Climate Change, I agree that the author is reliable. However, what the author published in the article can be refutable. I do agree with one point when the author states, “while triggering climate change might not be our fault, not doing everything we can about it now that we know it's happening — that would be our fault.”
The NPR organization and its stories are written by authors of varying credibility. I researched briefly about the credibility of NPR, and most people seem to find it a reliable source for information.
ReplyDeleteI read the article about climate change. The author wrote his own opinion about climate change, and had facts to support his opinion. I do agree with the point he was making, that humans triggered climate change as an accident. I also believe that humans need to recognize that global warming is happening, and we need to do as much as we can about that.
I read the climate change article. It is a very intriguing way to define blame on humans for climate change. The way he specifies that the blame is because of our inaction after knowing the impact of our action and less for our initial actions is a point of view that is new to me. In regards to his credibility, his work and credentials are not in environmental science, so that may be a draw back. But, this article was about perspective, so I think he is credible enough for this type of article.
ReplyDeleteI read the article titled "White House: We Have a Beef with GMO Regulations"; I believe that the article is a reliable source of information because NPR is credible and widely followed, and many statistics from well-known sources, such as the Center for Science in the Public Interest, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Environmental Protection Agency, and the Food and Drug Administration were included. I found the article to be interesting because it expanded my knowledge of GMOs by discussing the controversy regarding genetically modified organisms and new measures that are currently being attempted.
ReplyDeleteI read the article about global warming from the Npr news section. I couldnt find information on the author, but Npr is typically a reliable source when it comes to credible articles and news. The article was interesting and brought up many important facts that should be recognized as humans come to grips with global warming.
ReplyDeleteNPR is accounted as fairly reliable; however, NPR, like many news places are slightly biased as it is easy to spin the information in the most pleasing way that person sees fit. All in all, though, the article would still provide a sense of awareness and bring to your attention some general controversies in the GMO world. The best thing to do would be cross reference that information and do a little more digging to see if the information you found was reliable. The article regarding GMO's did not explain in great detail some of the controversies, but as previously stated, definitely brings a new found light and governing practices that surround the GMO world.
ReplyDeleteNPR as a whole is considered reliable although it can also be viewed as biased. The majority of their articles lean to a liberal perspective and often time skew their arguments so. Although, they do include reliable information mostly from well known credible sources. However, many times their articles are in fact opinion based and little facts presented. I read the first article on Climate Change. I do think that the author presented an interesting viewpoint with good information. I still personally believe that the Earth goes through cycles of climate change and that the process has only been sped up my mankind's carbon footprint.
ReplyDeleteReading the article on Climate Change, I agree that the author is reliable. However, what the author published in the article can be refutable. I do agree with one point when the author states, “while triggering climate change might not be our fault, not doing everything we can about it now that we know it's happening — that would be our fault.”
ReplyDeleteThanks for your responses!
ReplyDelete