The title of my recent source is Removing the Roadblocks to
Rehabilitation. It was published in the
New York Times a little over 2 years ago by Tina Rosenberg. The source passes the CRAAP test
entirely. The date shows that it is up
to date and it is very relevant to my topic.
It is relevant to my topic because it takes an inside look at how the
prison system fails to set inmates being released up to succeed. One hindrance
is that some states require inmates to return to the county that they were
arrested in. This is a big problem
because it is easy to fall back into old habits there. The source has authority
because it was published by the New York Times which is a very respected source
of information. It shows accuracy because she supports her information with
good logic and shows some of her sources.
One of these sources is David Kirk who is a sociologist at the
University of Texas. The only thing
about her accuracy is that her opinion might seem a bit biased. Also the
information has purpose. It is written to inform people and make them aware of
this growing problem and hopefully to spring people into action.
This source is helpful for my research because it is
reliable. The author has obviously done
her research and compiled evidence that supports my opinion about the
topic. One part that I liked is when she
said it is a failing system. I see it
time and time again in the ministry I work for. People just sit in jail and do
time and don’t address the real issue. I think the best part of her article was
that she provided links to some programs that are trying to make a difference.
In response I think that her ideas align directly with my
own. My own personal experience with prison is that they didn’t provide any
services to transition me back to community.
This article is significant because she provided links for people who
are trying to make a difference. I think this is important because she is
trying to be a part of the solution. When I compare this with my other sources I
think that their ideas align with each other because they provide specific
examples of a failing system. One thing that she touched that some of my
other sources did not was the political aspect.
She mentions that some politicians don’t want to seem soft on crime in
fear of losing votes. This is a new idea
because I would vote for a politician who acknowledged that we need a new plan
for punishment. I also like the fact that she provided the numbers for how much
it costs to imprison people for different lengths of time and provided her
source and a link.
Derek,
ReplyDeleteOverall, great work evaluating, summarizing, and responding to this source. Generally you're making observations and supporting them with evidence or explanations, which will enable you to form a solid, coherent opinion for your editorial proposal.
To encourage you to keep growing in your analytical skills, I want to show you a couple of places where you could further develop your ideas. First, you point out that the NY Times is a credible source, and I agree that is an established, well-known newspaper. But what about the author herself? If you scroll down past the end of the article, you can read that Ms. Rosenberg is Pulitzer Prize winner and has published at least two books plus served as an editor for the Times. This information helps us understand her credentials. Also, you suggest that her opinion might be biased but fail to tell us, your audience, where or how you see that through her article. It may be there, but without specific evidence cited from the source, I can't tell that for sure.
As you continue to find sources and respond to them, use the questions we discussed in class on Monday, especially focusing on the one idea you find most intriguing, challenging, or compelling from the source. Focusing on these kinds of ideas will help you build a bank of ideas for the foundation of your editorial proposal. The kind of focus will also keep your own writing more interesting for you and your readers.
Keep up the good work.