•Was the reporting of the news story clear and accurate, with sufficient depth and breadth? •Were some facts reported while others were ignored?
•Did the story consider alternative perspectives and worldviews? •Were there any questionable assumptions implicit in the story? •Were any implications ignored while others were emphasized? •Why is it important to make distinctions when undertaking a critical evaluation?
Wisconsin asks hunters to be on the lookout for marijuana
By Carma Hassan, CNN
The article I chose talks about how U.S. forest service has asked hunters and fisherman as well, who go to Wisconsin's Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest there has been finding of marihuana and not just a little about 8,000 plants worth 8 million dollars. I believed this story was very accurate, and sufficient in depth. The story I believed needed more the perspective of the hunter and the fisherman and what they thought of this suggestion from the U.S. forest, I would like to see if they encourage this or if they feel like maybe this isn’t there job, or even safety concerns that they may have for themselves. I feel they go a little off topic in the article when they start talking about legalizing marihuana when it was speaking about Wisconsin and the parks problem with frequent marihuana growth in the parks. It is important to make distinctions when undertaking a critical evaluation because you identify the good points of the article that you are evaluating. An example of this would be let’s say I read an article and you do not like the article at all you need to back up why you do not like the article give motives and back it up with facts. I belief this article was very informational and it did include a lot of details from sentences that would be provided if they would catch the people who grew...