Evaluation of General Sources

     In this blog entry, I will be discussing the two of the many different sources I have found that are about my postmortem controversy: The controversy over vaccinations in California and the SB277 bill that was passed.

The first source that I am going to evaluate is an article from Stanford University's online news page.
"California's vaccination law serves a national model for children's health, Stanford scholars say"

Michael, Ann Marie. "Kate, 8 years old, at the No on SB277 rally yesterday.  Her sign 

says "Every child has the right to education- California Consitution/ Oppose SB277".  

04/16/15 via Flicker. Creative Commons Generic License.  

• URL

The URL for this news source is .edu.  This means that the website is a top level domain for education.  Since Stanford is a prestigious 4-year university, the source appears to be credible.  Not only does the URL support that claim, but knowing the background of the university, the website and the article are trustworthy and not biased, just knowledgeable on the facts.  

• Author

The main author for this article is Clifton B. Parker, however he collaborated with two other Stanford law and medical professors, Michelle Mello and David Studdert.  Not only do all three of these authors have jobs at Stanford University as professors, but they are all very well educated and went to very prestigious schools to get to where they are today.  Clifton is a social sciences writer in the Stanford news as well as in the Futurity website also hosted by Stanford University.  Mello has a BA from Stanford, a MPhil from Oxford, a PhD from University of North Carolina Chapel Hill, and a JD from Yale Law School.  I would like to believe that those accomplishments would make her a credible source and author for the Stanford News.  Studdert has a law degree from the University of Melbourne and a doctoral degree in Public Health and Health Policies from Harvard School of Public Health.  Studdert was a policy advisor to the Australian Minister for Health while also being a practicing attorney.  These three authors seem to be extremely credible based on their education and their line of work currently.  

• Last Updated 

The article was published July 23, 2015.  I would say that the information is current to say the least.  The article was published almost two months after the SB277 bill was signed, so about 6 months have gone by since this article was published.  The links that are in the article are only on the names of the two other authors: Mello and Studdert which lead to the same websites that I attached in the section above.  The link gave all of their credentials.  The only other link in the article was the link to the article that Mello and Studdert co-wrote in the New England Journal of Medicine in July of 2015.  

• Purpose

The purpose of this article is to inform the reader about all of the ins and outs of the vaccination controversy in California.  Parker discusses the enforcement issues involved with the bill as well as the legality behind it and four positive outcomes that will come from the passing of the SB277 bill.  The point of this article is really to just give all of the information available on what the new bill will do and why it is an issue to some California residents.  There really is not a side that Parker, Mello, or Studdert are trying to promote, instead they are showing both sides of the issue by describing the pros and cons of the bill being passed.  This article is strictly factual which is necessary to read in order to be knowledgeable enough to be able to take a side on the issue.    

• Graphics

There is only one picture in the article and it is just of a man holding a needle that most likely holds a vaccine in it.  In the background, there is a California flag so I guess it specifies that this article deals with California.  There really is not much about the graphic that is special or that really makes a big difference in the article.  The article would not have been any better or worse without the graphic.  

• Position on Subject

As I stated before in a section above, the article is not one-sided or biased.  Instead, the article is more informative for both sides of the argument.  Both sides can profit from reading this article since there is very good information to have and understand if the reader wants to be able to take a side in the argument.  There is information presented on both sides of the issue, bringing up the issues that come with enforcing the bill as well as what is legally correct about the bill being passed.  

• Links

The article leads to links to the Stanford Law School, but there aren't any other links that lead to other articles related to vaccines or public health.  The other links lead to sharing the article on social media whether it be on Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, or via email.  

_________________________________________________________________________________

The second source is a video of the Senator of California, Joel Anderson (R) speaking about the opposing side of bill SB277.  

"Senator Anderson Opposes SB277 in Defense of Religious Freedom 5.14.15"

• URL

The URL for this news source is .com.  It is the most common and most recognized domain suffix and anyone can buy a .com.  Although this source is on a .com website, the video itself comes from CA Senate Republican Caucus vimeo account.  The .com sources are not as reliable as a .edu, .gov, or .org, but the video itself is reliable based on the account that published it.  

• Author

The author from the video is the California Senate Republican Caucus account on vimeo since that account posted the video and the video dealt with the Republican party of California.  The account appears to be trustworthy since there are solely videos of the 15 elected Republican members of the California Senate.  There are almost 2,000 videos posted that are all about Republican politics which makes me believe that this account is not phony.  

• Last Updated

This video was updated in May of 2015, which was about a month before the SB 277 bill was signed and passed.  There have not been any updates on that specific video since the time that it was published, but there are constantly videos being uploaded to this account.  For example, the most recent video on the account is from earlier today, the 28th of January, 2016.  Other links that are on the page lead me to other videos posted from the California Senate Republican Caucus account.  The top three videos suggested are more on republican senators speaking with regards to the SB 277 bill.  However, one of the videos from Senator Stone talks about how he supports the bill while Senator Anderson does not approve of it completely.  Another video in that line-up is of Senator Huff opposing the bill because of his belief that personal freedom is being neglected.  These videos are still from the same account and are from the same courtroom which makes them seem credible. 

• Purpose

The purpose of this video is to show the reasons why the SB 277 bill should not be passed.  Although, Senator Anderson makes it clear that the only thing that he does not approve in the bill is that religion will not be a legitimate reason to not get vaccinated.  Senator Anderson's speech makes it clear that religious freedom should be given to everyone in the United States.  He brings up the fact that in prison, religions are allowed to be practiced, but now people going to public schools or private schools will not be able to properly practice their religion since it would be against the law to not get their child vaccinated.  Senator Anderson seems to be very persuasive and brings up very good points for the opposing side of the argument.  

Fry1989. "Joke Seal of the Republican Caucus of the Senate of California".
15/10/2011 via Wikimedia Commons.  Public Domain Generic License.   

• Graphics

Since this news source is a video, there are not any graphics besides the video footage itself of the Senator speaking in the courtroom.  It is helpful to see Senator Anderson speak because you can clearly see how confident he is in what he is saying by his body posture and his actions.  He doesn't need to look at papers for much of the speech which also shows his confidence in presenting the opposing side of the controversy.  Sometimes it is just a nice change to be able to listen and watch news be talked about instead of simply reading the information given to you.  

• Position on Subject

The source seems to be somewhat one-sided.  From watching only the Senator Anderson video, one would think that the California Republican Caucus vimeo account would only have videos promoting the "say no to SB 277" side, however there are other videos where Republican Senators in California are on the pro SB 277 side of the argument.  In the specific case of just the Senator Anderson video, the video seems to be very one-sided.  The people that profit from this video are those who are on the opposing side and need to know that there are politicians in California that are supporting their protests.  The viewers can also get learn more about the political aspect of the controversy rather than just the moral views of protesting the bill.  This video was posted on the official Coalition of California Vaccine Choice SB277 website.  I wouldn't think that the people in charge of the website and the protests would allow a video with false information to be so important on their homepage of the website.  It would only hurt them in their efforts to get the bill to be repealed. 

• Links

As I mentioned in the "Last updated" section above, the links that were available on the same page as the original video only led to other videos from the same vimeo account with just other California senators speaking on the SB277 issue as well as others.  The only other links available are for sharing the video on social media or via email.  There were not any links to other articles that the video related to, only other videos.