In the wake of the recent
government shutdown, the gridlock between liberals and conservatives is now
more apparent than ever. The struggle is no longer between Democrat and
Republican, but good versus evil and right versus wrong. This article, written in 2012 before the
presidential election of that year, foreshadowed the furlough by highlighting
the prevalence of polarization in our country’s political views. The authors
argue that both liberals and conservatives are losing the moderates of their
parties, but that liberals cannot approach their campaigning in that way if
they want to succeed. Even though I disagree with some components of the
argument in this piece, it remains overall credible through its accuracy and
objectivity.
The authors of this article, Matthew
Nisbet and Dietram Scheufele, are both long-time scholars and professors in
their fields of communication and public affairs. They each have an extensive
resume, with multiple degrees from Ivy League universities (Scholars of
Harvard, p. 1). Because of their backgrounds, the authors had the extensive
knowledge necessary to execute this piece. However, as we learned from class in
the case of journalist Jonah Lehrer, sometimes a fancy education and
high-profile connections do not directly translate to credibility. But in this
particular case, Nisbet and Scheufele seem to have done their research given
the quality of the work and extensive reference list, not to mention that their
article has been cited for other scholarly works as well (Gaziano, p. 124). The
motivations for this piece appear to be straightforward, also. Both authors
have been highly merited professors for many years in their respected fields.
Their chosen career path is to educate individuals, and it follows that they
want to further their knowledge base and academic reputation.
When analyzing an article, it’s
also important to look at where it’s published. The Breakthrough Institute is an
organization focused on modernizing environmentalism (The Breakthrough Institute
p. 1). Their mission is to be a progressive think tank for research to transition
society’s use of fossil fuels to clean and sustainable energy sources. While
they criticize the idea of political parties and claim to be neutral and
unaffiliated, strong environmentalism is traditionally associated with
liberalism, and that is where I assume most of their readership comes from.
That is also who I think this article targets. However, for the most part, I
believe the authors hide their political affiliations well and remain objective
throughout their article. Only after
research could I determine this slight bias due to the publication and their
backgrounds. They successfully sustain the mission of The Breakthrough
Institute as a non-partisan organization.
As I previously stated, I disagree
with some points this article makes; however, that does not take away from the
credibility of the article because the authors’ promote accuracy and
objectivity throughout the piece. While the article itself focuses on
liberalism and seems to target a mostly liberal audience, the author’s
political affiliation remains unclear. Overall,
I believe the reader can be confident in the content of this article no matter
the political affiliation.
Word Count: 504
References
Dietram A. Scheufele. (n.d.). Dietram A. Scheufele.
Retrieved from http://scholar.harvard.edu/scheufele
Matthew C. Nisbet. (n.d.). BIO SKETCH.
Retrieved from http://scholar.harvard.edu/matthewnisbet/biocv
Nisbet, M., & Scheufele, D. (n.d.). THE
POLARIZATION PARADOX. The Breakthrough Institute. Retrieved from
http://thebreakthrough.org/journal/issue-3/the-polarization-paradox/
Our Mission. (n.d.). The Breakthrough Institute -.
Retrieved from http://thebreakthrough.org/about/mission/
No comments:
Post a Comment