The page itself was made to persuade those who don't exactly know about the tax situation(such as myself). Since all this information is coming from two groups, biases are present however I do like how they are coming together to show people like me the finer points of tax cuts.
What is the author's point of view? Summarize the argument being presented. What is the purpose of the site? The point of view is that tax cuts are not helpful to develop economies but they are still provided to companies. The purpose of this site is to help the people understand that tax justice should be fought for.
What is the author's / speaker's socio-political position? With what social, political, or professional groups is the speaker identified? Their position isn't really set in stone, but from what I read they were just looking for the full interest of those who are most effected by tax cuts, which aren't the companies.
Does the speaker have anything to gain personally from delivering the message?
I think all organizations look to gain something from making statements like this, however what they are looking for is admirable because the people are the ones who matter, not faceless companies.
Who is paying for the message? Where does the message appear? What is the bias of the medium? Who stands to gain?
The CTJ funds their own messages so the biases will show themselves slightly and as for what they stand to gain I think support is the main objective for any online organization.
What sources does the speaker use, and how credible are they? Does the speaker cite statistics? If so, how were the data gathered, who gathered the data, and are the data being presented fully?
The author linked all the information to 3 Pdf's from ITEP's research on tax cuts and from what I saw the content is brought very clearly.
How does the speaker present arguments? Is the message one-sided, or does it include alternative points of view? Does the speaker fairly present alternative arguments? Does the speaker ignore obviously conflicting arguments?
This was the only problem I found with the site is that they completely discount the other side of this argument which is to be expected from organization websites.
If the message includes alternative points of view, how are those views characterized? Does the speaker use positive words and images to describe his/her point of view and negative words and images to describe other points of view? Does the speaker ascribe positive motivations to his/her point of view and negative motivations to alternative points of view?
The only thing that was said about other points of view was that there is no evidence of its productivity. And their point is followed with statistics.
No comments:
Post a Comment