Description
One learning goal of this course is to be able to use reliable/credible sources. In an age of disinformation mixed in with good information, it is important to learn how to measure the credibility of sources. For this assignment, you will evaluate two sources. Your report can find all, some, or none of the sources credible. The important part is doing the work to complete the analysis well.
Minimum Requirements: Two (2) sources that are on the topic of your Proposal Argument must be analyzed using the template. One source must be accessed from our library. The other source must be accessed from the open web.
Format Requirements: The report is not an essay and will instead be formatted as given in the template. You must use the template linked here: Source Evaluation Template.docx. Please be sure to rename the file by adding your name after downloading it.
Content Structure: Each source will be presented on its own. Each analysis will be split into two sections: Citation and Analysis. The Citation section will present the citation as it would appear on an MLA Works Cited page. The Analysis section will be broken into answers to each part of the analysis: Authority, Accuracy, Bias/Purpose, Timeliness, Relevance, and Overall Evaluation.
Submission Guidelines:
You must submit print copies of all the sources on the due date in class. If the source is long, submit at least three pages of the source. The report must be submitted electronically as well as on paper.
Examples:
These are examples for your reference
Unformatted Attachment Preview
[Your Last Name Here] 1
[Your Name]
Professor Reno
ENG 102
[Date Here]
Source Evaluation
Source 1
[Source Citation Here]
Authority: Who is responsible for the information? Who is the author(s)? If the author is not
an expert or not listed, does the place of publication add authority? Is the author, editor,
publisher a reputable authority on the subject? What are their credentials/expertise? Search
other websites to verify the authority of the information. Be sure to cite this information on
the last page and in-text.
[Answer here]
Verifiable Accuracy: Is the piece well researched? Can the information provided be verified
through their use of a form of citation or transparency about where information comes from
such as clearly mentioning the author or linking to the source? Mention at least two sources
and why they seem to have authority.
[Answer here]
Bias/Purpose: Why did the author publish the information? To inform, educate, analyze,
advocate, sell, or entertain? Who is the intended audience? General readers? Academic
readers? Discipline specialists? What political, ideological, cultural, religious, institutional, or
personal perspectives and biases are evident; does the place of publication exist as a front to
promote an agenda?
[Answer here]
Timeliness: What is the date of publication or copyright? Has it been revised or updated? Is
the information presented in the work itself current or out of date for your research needs? Is
the information timely for your particular topic, i.e., no recent research has been done on the
topic?
[Answer here]
[Your Last Name Here] 2
Relevance: Does this source help answer your research question? How detailed is the
information? Is it too basic for your needs? Too advanced? Have you examined a variety of
sources before deciding this is the one you will use? Relevance is intermixed with all the other
evaluation criteria; everything is taken into consideration when determining relevance.
[Answer here]
Overall Evaluation: At this point, do you feel this source could be considered a quality
source for your research? Refer to your analysis done above to support your final judgment.
[Answer here]
Source 2
[Source Citation Here]
Authority: Who is responsible for the information? Who is the author(s)? If the author is not
an expert or not listed, does the place of publication add authority? Is the author, editor,
publisher a reputable authority on the subject? What are their credentials/expertise? Search
other websites to verify the authority of the information. Be sure to cite this information.
[Answer here]
Verifiable Accuracy: Is the piece well researched? Can the information provided be verified
through their use of a form of citation or transparency about where information comes from
such as clearly mentioning the author or linking to the source? Mention at least two sources
and why they seem to have authority.
[Answer here]
Bias/Purpose: Why did the author publish the information? To inform, educate, analyze,
advocate, sell, or entertain? Who is the intended audience? General readers? Academic
readers? Discipline specialists? What political, ideological, cultural, religious, institutional, or
personal perspectives and biases are evident; does the place of publication exist as a front to
promote an agenda?
[Answer here]
Timeliness: What is the date of publication or copyright? Has it been revised or updated? Is
the information presented in the work itself current or out of date for your research needs? Is
the information timely for your particular topic, i.e., no recent research has been done on the
topic?
[Answer here]
[Your Last Name Here] 3
Relevance: Does this source help answer your research question? How detailed is the
information? Is it too basic for your needs? Too advanced? Have you examined a variety of
sources before deciding this is the one you will use? Relevance is intermixed with all the other
evaluation criteria; everything is taken into consideration when determining relevance.
[Answer here]
Overall Evaluation: At this point, do you feel this source could be considered a quality
source for your research? Refer to your analysis done above to support your final judgment.
[Answer here]
[Your Last Name Here] 4
Works Cited
[List any sources used in your evaluation here.]
Last Name 1
Name
Professor Reno
ENG 102 605
November 16, 2022
Source Evaluation
Source 1
Chandra, Anita. “Mental Health Stigma.” Encyclopedia of Adolescence, Roger J. R.
Levesque, Springer Science+Business Media, 2nd edition, 2018. Credo
Reference,
https://ezproxy.stlcc.edu/login?url=https://search.credoreference.com/content/ent
ry/sprgstv/mental_health_stigma/0?institutionId=492. Accessed 21 Oct. 2022.
Authority: Who is responsible for the information? Who is the author(s)? If the author is not
an expert or not listed, does the place of publication add authority? Is the author, editor,
publisher a reputable authority on the subject? What are their credentials/expertise? Search
other websites to verify the authority of the information. Be sure to cite this information.
The author is Anita Chandra. She earned her doctorate from the John Hopkins
Bloomberg School of Public Health and has spent the time afterwards proposing public
health solutions to both federal and nonfederal groups (Academy). She has been cited
multiple times by various news publications such as NBC and PBS (NPR).
Verifiable Accuracy: Is the piece well researched? Can the information provided be verified
through their use of a form of citation or transparency about where information comes from
such as clearly mentioning the author or linking to the source? Mention at least two sources
and why they seem to have authority.
The article clearly cites the information it references in a way that allows for the reader
to research the sources used. The author uses a variety of sources from studies and research
papers to support her ideas. Three of her citations include research and articles she had
previously helped write with another author while the rest are from other authors and
publications. One of the article’s sources is “Depictions of Mental Illness in Children’s Media”
Last Name 2
by Otto F Wahl, a professor of psychology and author of books discussing stigma of mental
disorders and its portrayal in media (Otto). His article discussing how children’s media
portrays mental illness was published in the Journal of Mental Health. Another source is an
academic research article, “Perceived stigma as a predictor of treatment discontinuation in
young and older outpatients with depression” published in The American Journal of
Psychiatry, a peer-reviewed, scientific journal.
Bias/Purpose: Why did the author publish the information? To inform, educate, analyze,
advocate, sell, or entertain? Who is the intended audience? General readers? Academic
readers? Discipline specialists? What political, ideological, cultural, religious, institutional, or
personal perspectives and biases are evident; does the place of publication exist as a front to
promote an agenda?
Her purpose for publishing this article is to analyze the effects of mental health stigma on
adolescents and the current limitations of research done about those stigmas. Chandra has a
history of advocating for programs that help children’s health and does so in the article by
stating the need for more research into how stigma affects adolescents.
Timeliness: What is the date of publication or copyright? Has it been revised or updated? Is
the information presented in the work itself current or out of date for your research needs? Is
the information timely for your particular topic, i.e., no recent research has been done on the
topic?
This publication is from 2018 making this article four years old now. The referenced
sources contained in this article range from the year 1989 to 2009 making the information
presented on the studied effects of stigma and mental illness dated in comparison to more
recent studies. There have been recent research/studies that support the research cited in the
article namely that there is a correlation between a higher rate of perceived stigma and
barriers to healthcare. One article published more recently contains similar information but
include that the stigma towards mentally ill children and young adults (specifically males)
among their peers may have gone down although the cause cannot be exactly determined
(Clark).
Relevance: Does this source help answer your research question? How detailed is the
information? Is it too basic for your needs? Too advanced? Have you examined a variety of
sources before deciding this is the one you will use? Relevance is intermixed with all the other
evaluation criteria; everything is taken into consideration when determining relevance.
It does help answer my research question and some of my secondary questions.
Understanding how stigma can affect children and adolescents can help in creating a solution
that includes education on those stigmas. Mental health stigma is shown to be a barrier to
obtaining help for individuals due to societal and familial stigmas about mental illness. Part
of how to increase access to care could be to decrease the fear of seeking treatment in the
first place. I have examined other sources before choosing this one and concluded that this
could have useful information.
Last Name 3
Overall Evaluation: At this point, do you feel this source could be considered a quality
source for your research? Refer to your analysis done above to support your final judgment.
This is a quality source because of the expertise of the author and the clear indicators
of where she got her sources. It answers my secondary research questions and aids in
answering my main question. The citations are still supported by current research but should
be supplemented with newer information. The information cited comes from other authorities in
psychology along with the author’s own knowledge.
Source 2
“Alarm on Children’s Mental Health Has Been Ringing for Decades. Too Few Have Listened..”
Issues & Controversies, Infobase, 6 Oct. 2022,
icof.infobase.com/articles/QXJ0aWNsZUVkaXRvcmlhbDozOTcyNjk3fHxsVk1aNnNYNGRn
SjBrWDk1YjBELTI1OGwtbHlldXQ5VkhIZ2JiSVk2QVh5OFl6UUhFdjFidlFkMV9pUkd6bzlIYlh
UX3BJRlJvQzhzVEZBTlpGTmVKZXdFNzZUbkVad3ZBWXNWYlV3QllBbkg4UzJxa3pobmQta
mZCcVFCYVpXMg==. Accessed 24 Oct. 2022.
Authority: Who is responsible for the information? Who is the author(s)? If the author is not
an expert or not listed, does the place of publication add authority? Is the author, editor,
publisher a reputable authority on the subject? What are their credentials/expertise? Search
other websites to verify the authority of the information. Be sure to cite this information.
The author is Maurice J. Elias, a professor of clinical psychology, who works at Rutgers
School of Art and Sciences (Rutgers). He also works within Rutgers’ Social-Emotional and
Character Development Lab (Rutgers). The publisher is USA Today, a newspaper founded in
1982 according to the USA Today website (About USA).
Verifiable Accuracy: Is the piece well researched? Can the information provided be verified
through their use of a form of citation or transparency about where information comes from
such as clearly mentioning the author or linking to the source? Mention at least two sources
and why they seem to have authority.
The article provides its sources through links on the USA Today website. Some of
those links are for other USA Today articles that had previously been published. There are a
few statements where the author states information that are his opinion without such as
when he talks about we cannot solve the Two sources are “New HHS Study in JAMA Pediatrics
Last Name 4
Shows Significant Increases in Children Diagnosed with Mental Health Conditions from 2016
to 2020”, and “Few Black men become school psychologists. Here’s why that matters”. “New
HHS Study in JAMA Pediatrics Shows Significant Increases in Children Diagnosed with Mental
Health Conditions from 2016 to 2020”, is a U.S Department of Human Services study
published in the American Medical Association’s Journal which is an authority because of its
peer-reviewed and reports on medical information and academic studies. “Few Black men
become school psychologists. Here’s why that matters” is published by NPR, an authority
because it’s status as a national nonprofit news outlet that while left-leaning, tries to present
information accurately.
Bias/Purpose: Why did the author publish the information? To inform, educate, analyze,
advocate, sell, or entertain? Who is the intended audience? General readers? Academic
readers? Discipline specialists? What political, ideological, cultural, religious, institutional, or
personal perspectives and biases are evident; does the place of publication exist as a front to
promote an agenda?
He published the article to advocate for preventative measures to be taken regarding
the mental health of young people instead of trying to fix the current problems that he argues
do not have an immediate solution. His intended audience is general readers in addition to
the readers of USA Today who, according to MediaBiasFactCheck, are mostly left-leaning.
USA Today has a left-center bias and has previously published articles that use charged or
emotional language to appeal to their audience alongside previously missing published
inaccurate information (Media).
Timeliness: What is the date of publication or copyright? Has it been revised or updated? Is
the information presented in the work itself current or out of date for your research needs? Is
the information timely for your particular topic, i.e., no recent research has been done on the
topic?
The article was published on October 6, 2022 with no revisions. It is a month old and is
not currently out of date for my topic. The research and articles I found were from earlier
dates so this articles is current to the issues facing mental health care access and the
discussion around it.
Relevance: Does this source help answer your research question? How detailed is the
information? Is it too basic for your needs? Too advanced? Have you examined a variety of
sources before deciding this is the one you will use? Relevance is intermixed with all the other
evaluation criteria; everything is taken into consideration when determining relevance.
The article does provide insight from a clinical psychology background about the
importance of preventative treatment in mental health. It is too basic in comparison to other
sources, even ones that are not academic papers.
Overall Evaluation: At this point, do you feel this source could be considered a quality
source for your research? Refer to your analysis done above to support your final judgment.
Last Name 5
This source is not a quality source due to the accuracy issues of the publisher and the
existence of other research that provides similar ideas with extensive sources. This source is
limited in its viewpoint in treating both the current deficit in access to care and the
opinion that we can only prevent future problems in access, not solve current issues. Some of
the sources the author cited within the article should be considered for use in my research
instead.
Source 3
Paton, Kate, et al. “How can the education sector support children’s mental health?
Views of Australian healthcare clinicians.” PLoS ONE, vol. 17, no. 1, 24 Jan.
2022, p. e0261827. Gale In Context: Opposing
Viewpoints, link.gale.com/apps/doc/A690342652/OVIC?u=morenetsccol&sid=bo
okmark-OVIC&xid=9f7da93b. Accessed 28 Oct. 2022.
Authority: Who is responsible for the information? Who is the author(s)? If the author is not
an expert or not listed, does the place of publication add authority? Is the author, editor,
publisher a reputable authority on the subject? What are their credentials/expertise? Search
other websites to verify the authority of the information. Be sure to cite this information.
There are multiple authors who contributed to this article according to the original
article and citation. Those authors are Kate Paton, Lynn Gillam, Hayley Warren, Melissa
Mulraney, David Coghill, Daryl Efron, Michael Sawyer, and Harriet Hiscock. According to the
original article on Public Library of Science’s website, they all have an association with the
medical or scientific field such as The Centre for Community Children’s Health, Murdoch’s
Children Research Institute, and the Royal Children’s Hospital (Public). Lynn Gillam has a
MA in philosophy, a PhD in bioethics, and has contributed to over 200 ethics consultations
(Prof Lynn). Melissa Mulraney has a PhD, has researched ADHD, and has twice won the World
Federation of ADHD’s Young Scientists’ Award (Melissa). David Coghill is a professor and
psychiatrist that leads the Developmental Research Group within the Division of
Neuroscience (David). Daryl Efron is a pediatrician and researcher that studies ADHD and
autism in children (Daryl). Harriet Hiscock is a director and associate director of several
hospitals and research departments, she researches ADHD, anxiety, and sleep, and has won
numerous awards (Harriet).
Verifiable Accuracy: Is the piece well researched? Can the information provided be verified
through their use of a form of citation or transparency about where information comes from
Last Name 6
such as clearly mentioning the author or linking to the source? Mention at least two sources
and why they seem to have authority.
It cites its sources within the text by a numbering system that is transparent in how it
is laid out and used. It contains a variety of sources. One of their sources is “Part and parcel of
teaching? Secondary school staff’s views on supporting student emotional health and wellbeing”, an article published in the British Educational Research Journal. The British
Educational Research Journal has authority because it is a peer-reviewed journal publisher
that includes international articles with this citation being published by many authors. A
second source is “Improving the mental and brain health of children and adolescents”, which
is published by the World Health Organization. The World Health Organization is a group that
leads international efforts to study and increase health across the world.
Bias/Purpose: Why did the author publish the information? To inform, educate, analyze,
advocate, sell, or entertain? Who is the intended audience? General readers? Academic
readers? Discipline specialists? What political, ideological, cultural, religious, institutional, or
personal perspectives and biases are evident; does the place of publication exist as a front to
promote an agenda?
They published this article to analyze data from a survey of clinicians about how
education could be used to promote access to mental health care. It was authored as an
academic research paper with its intended audience being researchers and specialists in
medicine and education. There is a bias towards the medical professionals and their
assessment of how education could be effective in increasing access to care although it takes
care in presenting physicians that are for and against the education sector being used for
mental health advocacy. The authors are people who have a background in children’s
healthcare so they have a reason to support programs and ideas that can help children’s
health. The article writes that Professor David Coghill received funding from different
pharmaceutical and biotechnical companies such as Shire and Eli Lily as a competing interest
to the research although, he is stated to be the only one to have a secondary interest.
Timeliness: What is the date of publication or copyright? Has it been revised or updated? Is
the information presented in the work itself current or out of date for your research needs? Is
the information timely for your particular topic, i.e., no recent research has been done on the
topic?
The date of publication is January 24, 2022, with no revisions or updates. The
information is current for my research. The other research I found was from around a similar
or earlier timeframe. The citations within the article did not seem to be out of date either.
Relevance: Does this source help answer your research question? How detailed is the
information? Is it too basic for your needs? Too advanced? Have you examined a variety of
sources before deciding this is the one you will use? Relevance is intermixed with all the other
evaluation criteria; everything is taken into consideration when determining relevance.
Last Name 7
It does help answer my research questions as part of my concern with increasing
access to mental health care would be whether there is a way to provide preventative or early
intervention care for young children that may be exhibiting signs of mental health troubles.
Timely access to mental health services and techniques can be a solution by introducing
coping mechanisms, therapy, or medication as needed before mental illness has a negative
impact on children’s education, social interactions, and mental well-being.
Overall Evaluation: At this point, do you feel this source could be considered a quality
source for your research? Refer to your analysis done above to support your final judgment.
This source is an informative and quality source for my research. It is current in its
information. It is written by experts in psychology who provide insight into how clinicians feel
about solving health access limitations. The publication can be trusted to provide accurate
information without an extreme bias or agenda. It also answers my main question and some
secondary research questions.
Last Name 8
Works Cited
“Anita Chandra, Dr. P.H”. AcademyHealth. https://academyhealth.org/about/people/anitachandra-drph. Accessed November 11, 2022.
“Anita Chandra”.NPR. https://training.npr.org/sources/anita-chandra/. Accessed November
11,2022.
Clark, Laura. H., et al. “Anxiety Specific Mental Health Stigma and Help-Seeking in Adolescent
Males.” Journal of Child & Family Studies, vol. 29, no. 7, July 2020, pp. 1970–
81. EBSCOhost, https://doi-org.ezproxy.stlcc.edu/10.1007/s10826-019-01686-0.
“Otto Wahl, PhD”. WebMD. https://www.webmd.com/otto-wahl. Accessed November 16,
2022.
“Welcome to the Department of Psychology: Maurice Elias”.Rutgers: School of Arts and
Sciences. https://psych.rutgers.edu/faculty-profiles-a-contacts/93-maurice-elias.
Accessed November 15, 2022.
“USA Today”. MediaBiasFactCheck. https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/usa-today-2/. Accessed
November 16,2022.
“About USA Today”. USA Today. https://static.usatoday.com/about/. Accessed November
16,2022.
“Prof Lynn Gillam”.The University of Melbourne.
https://findanexpert.unimelb.edu.au/profile/3107-lynn-gillam. Accessed November
14,2022.
“Dr. Melissa Mulraney”. The Association for Child and Adolescent Mental Health.
https://www.acamh.org/journal/meet-the-editors-camh/dr-melissa-mulraney/.
Accessed 14, 2022.
“David Coghill”. University of Dundee. https://www.dundee.ac.uk/people/david-coghill.
Accessed November 15,2022.
“A/Prof. Daryl Efron”. The Children’s Private Medical Group.
https://www.cpmgmelbourne.com.au/aprof-daryl-efron. Accessed November 16,
2022.
“Professor Harriet Hiscock”. The Royal Children’s Hospital Melbourne.
https://www.rch.org.au/ccch/about/people/Professor_Harriet_Hiscock/. Accessed
November 15, 2022.
Last Name 1
Name
Professor Reno
ENG 102
11/16/2022
Source Evaluation
Coleman-Jensen, Alisha et al. “Household Food Security in the United States.” United States
Department of Agriculture, Sep 2022,
https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/publications/104656/err-309.pdf?v=1547.3
Authority: Who is responsible for the information? Who is the author(s)? If the author is not
an expert or not listed, does the place of publication add authority? Is the author, editor,
publisher a reputable authority on the subject? What are their credentials/expertise? Search
other websites to verify the authority of the information. Be sure to cite this information.
The Unites States Department of Agriculture represents the government leadership
surrounding food, agriculture and natural resources surrounding public policy. The source is
a publication of food security statistics and analysis retrieved from 2021 current population
survey food security supplement. The work is reputable as it is collected by a long-standing
U.S government department established in 1862. The department currently sets an industry
standard throughout the nation through its regulations of food distribution guidelines,
animal and plant health guidelines, and quality assurance regulations. Alisha ColemanJensen has reported on Household security dating back to 2010.
Verifiable Accuracy: Is the piece well researched? Can the information provided be verified
through their use of a form of citation or transparency about where information comes from
such as clearly mentioning the author or linking to the source? Mention at least two sources
and why they seem to have authority.
In factchecking this source against Feeding America, a national food back service,
Feeding America stated that 10.9% of people are food insecure. This roughly matched the
10.2% food insecurity rating that the Department of agriculture states. However, Feeding
America states that 14.6% of children live in food insecure households and the USDA
publication has this number at 6.2% showing a discrepancy in their findings. (Impact of
Coronavirus) This may be explained by the USDA having two different categories for food
Last Name 2
insecurity which they label as, low food security and very low food security. According to
Food and Research Action Center 10.4% of people struggle with food security issues and draw
a correlation to this insecurity to similar numbers for poverty in America. (Hunger and
Poverty) Lastly, the source is very well researched itself citing 67 different sources itself.
Bias/Purpose: Why did the author publish the information? To inform, educate, analyze,
advocate, sell, or entertain? Who is the intended audience? General readers? Academic
readers? Discipline specialists? What political, ideological, cultural, religious, institutional, or
personal perspectives and biases are evident; does the place of publication exist as a front to
promote an agenda?
The paper is consistent in pointing out that food insecurity numbers are inflated
periodically and makes sure to reinforce this stating that food insecurity should not be mis
interrupted as constant. This means that food security largely hinges on time of year, holiday
season, economy, household situation and many of these things are in flux. Interestingly, the
USDA points out that of the 56% of participants of the survey claim that they have needed to
use food assistance plans like food stamps, SNAP, and funded school lunch programs. While
the overall paper seems mostly concerned with listing the stats and numbers in comparison
with years prior there does seem to be slight undertone to show that state and federal funded
food assistance programs are shrinking the food insecurity numbers over time.
Timeliness: What is the date of publication or copyright? Has it been revised or updated? Is
the information presented in the work itself current or out of date for your research needs? Is
the information timely for your particular topic, i.e., no recent research has been done on the
topic?
Published September 2022 with information regarding the prior year of 2021. The
document in current and timely. Secondly, the source lists stats from prior years for
comparison.
Relevance: Does this source help answer your research question? How detailed is the
information? Is it too basic for your needs? Too advanced? Have you examined a variety of
sources before deciding this is the one you will use? Relevance is intermixed with all the other
evaluation criteria; everything is taken into consideration when determining relevance.
The source is relevant since to my paper. I will be discussing the Kroger-Albertson
merger and how after such a merger overlapping stores could be closing. This may create
food deserts and worsen the food insecurity issues for many people. For example, if a
household is already considered to have low food security due to the economy, less access to
food in their neighbor could instantly make these households security very low. I believe that
it is important to develop an emotion appeal with this proposal since pointing out only facts
may not evoke much of a human response from the reader.
Overall Evaluation: At this point, do you feel this source could be considered a quality
source for your research? Refer to your analysis done above to support your final judgment.
Last Name 3
I do think this source should be considered quality for the frank listing of national
statistics for food security. I would like to argue that the Kroger-Albertson merger is not only
monopolistic but also potentially dangerous for certain consumers. Also, I firmly believe that
an emotional appeal is needed in a paper that could easily be overcome by just the business
side of this merger when in fact it has wider reaching consequences. Also, I think that I would
like to back up this information with Feeding America’s findings since they seem to draw on a
human response a little better.
United Food and Commercial Workers Local 400 union et al. “Organizations Letter to Federal
Trade Commission.” UFCW Local 400, 3 Nov. 2022, https://www.ufcw400.org/wpcontent/uploads/2022/11/20221103-Organizations-Letter-to-FTC.pdf.
Authority: Who is responsible for the information? Who is the author(s)? If the author is not
an expert or not listed, does the place of publication add authority? Is the author, editor,
publisher a reputable authority on the subject? What are their credentials/expertise? Search
other websites to verify the authority of the information. Be sure to cite this information.
The Local 400 workers union represents around 35,000 workers in food retail,
department store retail, food processing and health care. While Kroger is not fully unionized
about two thirds of all Kroger workers are. An expert in worker welfare regarding Kroger
employees and in fact Local 400 received backing by Senator Bernie Sanders during his
presidential run in 2019 according to The Washington Post. (Sullivan and Weigel) Local 400 is
part of the even larger international United Food and Commercial Workers union that
represents 1.3 million workers in the United States and Canada.
Verifiable Accuracy: Is the piece well researched? Can the information provided be verified
through their use of a form of citation or transparency about where information comes from
such as clearly mentioning the author or linking to the source? Mention at least two sources
and why they seem to have authority.
The UFCW proposes that Cerberus capitol management will be the main beneficiaries
of the merger due to large payouts they would receive. NBC backs up this claim by stating
that Cerberus plans to pull out their investments were the merger to take place paying them
roughly $1 billion dollars in the process in divestiture payments. (Morgenson) The UFCW
continues by stating that Kroger and Albertsons already have gross shares of the market, and
the merger would only worsen this issue. Most of all worsening the conditions for workers.
UFCW reminds the reader that Kroger closed stores due to mandated covid -19 hazard pay
implementations in 2021. The Guardian backs this up by pointing out that Kroger closed
stores in Seattle, Long Beach and Los Angeles even though they also reported operating at a
$2.8 billion dollar profit from 2020. (Sainato)
Last Name 4
Bias/Purpose: Why did the author publish the information? To inform, educate, analyze,
advocate, sell, or entertain? Who is the intended audience? General readers? Academic
readers? Discipline specialists? What political, ideological, cultural, religious, institutional, or
personal perspectives and biases are evident; does the place of publication exist as a front to
promote an agenda?
The United Food and Commercial Union prepared this letter to sway the Federal Trade
Commission to stop the proposed merger. With the Kroger employees they represent as the
primary recipients of hardship if the merger would go through, I think that the letter is very
biased. The letter addresses many reasons to stop the merger, the money grab by Albertsons,
the possible store closures that come from it and the monopoly of the market this new
grocery giant would hold. However, the primary agenda of the letter is the welfare of its
employees. The proposal does not explore a positive reason for the merger which would be
that grocery superma
