29 Comments
Barter
8/23/2016 02:57:36 pm
Think about the point of view of the author. Is he biased, if so how has that distorted the article. Also think about the gravity of state conventions being called to amend the Constitution.
Reply
8/25/2016 05:40:47 pm
The author approaches the topic from a conservative point of view in the beginning. Then, from the end of the third page to the top of the fifth page the article shows a more liberal prospective. At the end of the fifth page the point of view turns fairly balanced.
Reply
Ashlynn
8/27/2016 11:58:21 am
I agree with ypur stand point that the article does switch from conservative to veing more liberal.
Reply
Meghan
8/27/2016 09:22:16 pm
I agree. The author explains all parts of the argument very well, and that the likeliness of an amendment coming from a convention is unlikely considering they can only propose them.
Reply
Ashlynn
8/27/2016 11:57:05 am
The author starts off with saying that we need to balance the budget and trying to fix the national debt would be like opening "pandora's box" . He also quotes someone saying that creating more debt and leaving it to the next generation is unfair and rude.
Reply
Barter
9/6/2016 08:57:41 am
So is it biased one way or not?
Meghan
8/27/2016 09:25:26 pm
I agree that leaving the debt to the next generation is unfair. I also agree that the author sort of ends the article in a tie.
Reply
Jesus
8/28/2016 01:47:29 am
I agree that there could be a certain security and sureness to state conventions because no states or representatives have ever "gone rouge" and tried to do something absurd before. Getting the two sides to agree on any subject, especially about the economy, is not likely to yield any results and we would simply finish where we started.
Reply
Savannah
8/28/2016 04:04:48 pm
I agree. The author does a really good job describing what the both parties wants, it is a draw.
Reply
Savannah
8/28/2016 04:14:53 pm
I agree with you that he does a great job in protraiting both sides of the parties. I also believe that he is biased by stating "the Constitution’s blessing" like as if it is holy, he calls it "juggernaut" and "could open a Pandora’s box of constitutional mischief". I'm not saying thay he is republic or democrat, I'm simply saying that he belives that it shouldn't be changed.
Reply
Ashlynn
8/29/2016 10:37:31 am
I agree that the author does a good job in being unbiased with both parties.
Meghan
8/27/2016 09:11:37 pm
I don't think the author of this article was biased at all. With the touchy subject that politics is I think he explained both sides of the argument very well.
Reply
Jesus
8/28/2016 01:41:49 am
I do agree with you in that it would be unlikely that anything would change as a result of the state conventions. The author does leave off in the middle of the argument without ending on one side or the other. I do not think that a bipartisanship could be established with a subject as serious as this.
Reply
Ryan
8/28/2016 07:22:34 pm
I agree with you, the article was not biased all
Reply
Jesus
8/28/2016 01:28:14 am
There was not much bias in this article as the author does a good job of explaining both sides of the argument with good detail as a good journalist should.
Reply
Kayla
8/28/2016 05:27:29 pm
I agree that the situation should turn out okay because similar conventions have gone civilly, but the author does bring up a good point when they mention that there are no real controls on the situation. We have to be aware that there are risks when leaving such a potentially big change so open to interpretation and without restrictions.
Reply
Anthony
8/28/2016 06:29:46 pm
I agree with you that the author is not biased because to be a journalist you can't really be biased unless you want to get flak from the other side I also like the point you made about it not being so severe because there's less of a chance that they'll actually amend anything
Reply
Ryan
8/28/2016 07:27:44 pm
I agree that the article was not biased as well he basically stated two sides and the total result from the two sides. Also, I agree that something this big and the first time it is being brought up does stir up some controversy and of course with have two sides battling out for what should be done.
Reply
Caden
8/28/2016 10:35:20 pm
I agree with both your post, and Kayla's comment. The magnitude of the situation is very large because of its first time popularity, but we must be wary due to the "unknown outcome(s)". There truly are no absolute controls on the whole thing.
Reply
Savannah Meyers
8/28/2016 04:02:07 pm
The author talks about whether or not the consition should be amended. I belive he is biased because he said "could open a Pandora’s box of constitutional mischief" ; this means that his point of this argument that it is bad and should happen. He also states that the "the Constitution’s blessing" such means that he thinks changing it is still bad.
Reply
Kayla
8/28/2016 05:24:27 pm
I disagree that the author is biased because, while the beginning may seem to be pointing in one direction, the article as a whole does not really lean one way or the other. The author is simply pointing out that something like this has never been done before so the outcome is uncertain and may be bad.
Reply
Anthony
8/28/2016 06:26:04 pm
I also disagree because while yes it does seem to point one way in the beginning of the article he does switch views to explain the other side of the argument
Reply
Kayla
8/28/2016 05:21:20 pm
The author was not very biased at all. They explained both sides of the argument with pretty equal detail and did not seem to openly support one or the other.
Reply
Anthony
8/28/2016 06:23:53 pm
I do not think that the author was biased one way or the other. Like most people said he explains both sides of the argument and doesn't really seem to take a side.
Reply
Ryan
8/28/2016 07:18:26 pm
The article that was read did not seem biased at all. He explains both view and ideas from each political side. Conservatives wanting a balanced budget while while "skeptics" and "constitutional scholars" could disrupt the whole meaning of the constitution because we have been doing the same thing for so long. The author then goes to mention how something like this could happen but, is virtually impossible because the "three-thirds" would never agree on this idea. So overall, the article states the sides and shows the possible outcome of the situation.
Reply
Caden
8/28/2016 10:32:16 pm
I agree that the author was just trying to describe the sides and end result with the article. Also, how it would end up being "virtually impossible" for the idea to pass.
Reply
Caden
8/28/2016 10:30:37 pm
The article was no biased, if anything the author was just trying to provide equal standing ground for any views a reader may already have. Its a large magnitude because state conventions have never happened before, and uniting all the states to amend something is a big step. Sadly, the convention can only propose the amendment, so there is a chance it wouldn't happened.
Reply
Leave a Reply. |
Archives
January 2020
Categories |