Critical Analysis of an essay by Tom Bevan

Tom Bevan explores the validity of Trump’s attention on US immigration in a post titled “GOP Needs a Health Care Plan, Not an Immigration Plan.” Tom Devan is the co-founder of Realclear Media Group. Realclear Politics, the article’s publisher, states their goal is to “present balanced, non-partisan analysis that empowers our readers to stay informed.” In addition to writing, Bevan oversees the company’s editorial staff and works as a guest analyst for other news sites. The article appears well researched, mostly unbiased, and provides substantial evidence to support the author’s claim that Trump’s focus on immigration is out of step with American priorities.  

The publisher’s reputation is fair. Mediabiasfactcheck.com rate Realclear Politics as Right centered with a mixed rating for factual reporting due to the use of outside sources that have failed fact-checking tests. The evidence that is used by Beven in this article is, however, sourced from Realclear politics itself. It should be noted that Mediabiasfactcheck.com claim that: 

“According to Political Wire, RealClear operated a far right website by the name Conservative Country, while this website is no longer in existence the associated Facebook Page has 800,000+ followers. The Facebook Page publishes pro-Trump, anti-immigrant, Islamophobic, far right memes and information, many of which link back to RealClear properties”

This information may not directly affect the veracity of the article or the publisher, but it is nonetheless important to know a business’s background when analyzing the legitimacy of its product. 

Bevan uses Realclear Politics’ own survey research to prove that American voters are more interested in health care reform than immigration. The survey data is not cited directly but can be found through a linked article. The survey shows healthcare is the registered voter’s number one policy concern from a sample of 2000. A critical piece of information missing is the sampling method used by Realclear Politics. 

Although Bevan uses evidence to back up his thesis, there is an assertion made within the second paragraph that lacks any citation. It states that "some democrats now begrudgingly admit” to a crisis on America’s border. The ambiguity inherent in this claim, whether intentional or not, has the potential to play into typical right-leaning biases and is unrelated to the thesis. This misstep could be a tell highlighting the publisher’s right-leaning bias, as reported by Mediabiasfactcheck.com. It would have been preferential for Bevan to be more specific as well as including documentation. However, it may just be an oversight and does not degrade the quality of Bevan’s primary argument.

Given that the author uses clear evidence to back up their thesis, and that the argument shows a lack of bias, it is easy to concur with Bevan that Trump’s lack of attention on health care is not in line with the interests of voters.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Editorial Critique #1

Michael McGough, senior editorial writer for the Los Angeles Times, pens a short and sensationalized argument in defense of Adam Schiff’s recent statement regarding President Trump’s phone call with with Ukraine Leader Volodymyr Zelensky entitled: “ Adam Schiff’s riff on Trump’s Ukraine call was more truth than parody, but still unwise ”. Although the name of the article implies a commentary that includes both favor and criticism of Schiff, once studied, the editorial’s bias is clear. Any worthy point McGough could have made is lost in excess personal attacks and weakened still by an anemic attempt to project impartiality in his concluding critique of Schiff. Both the author and publisher appear respectable and long-serving. Nonetheless, their propriety is undercut by the bitter nature of this article. From the outset, McGough uses hyperbolic and derogatory descriptors of Trump’s character and behavior. Phrases like “new extremes of crazy” and “deranged” set the tone for the intr
Read more

Values Trump Data

When making policy, on what should we base our decisions: values, or data? We have strong values and traditions that inform our political ideology and direction: laws are made, budgets drawn, and our country’s future set. These belief systems are a fundamental aspect of our culture and can provide a strong sense of identity. Longstanding examples of these values include free speech, voting rights, and the right to bear arms, all enshrined in the Bill of Rights. But what if conclusive evidence discredits our values or proves the methods they inspire to be ineffective? In response, we have two distinct choices: to adhere to tradition regardless, ignoring fact, or to pivot in line with our goals. To pivot is frequently problematic. Beliefs become an integral part of our identity, and in confronting them, we often feel personally challenged. However, if we disregard data when voting, setting budgets, and creating policy, we will fail to realize our objectives. Let’s use sexuality edu
Read more

Beyond Profiteering

An  article  published by  reuters.com  reports on a decision by a U.S. appeals court to continue a case alleging that President Trump has profited from officials who have patronized Trump's businesses. I found most interesting the consideration that beyond profiteering, there is an equally serious concern. As part of the charges brought by the plaintiffs, an accusation made is that officials (both foreign and domestic) may choose to patronize Trump establishments to curry favor.  Although this idea is presented in only one line within the article, it stands out to me as perhaps the most important. Most talking points relating to this subject center around the possibility of President Trump profiteering unconstitutionally. However, we should seriously consider the risk of inappropriate and unfair influence gained by those who support his businesses. President Trump is exceptionally focused on whether or not people like him. This self-concern suggests a possible weakness and a
Read more