While this article includes an explanation of the whole big problem with Monsanto, its seeds and small farmers, it is more of an interview of one seed farm owner giving her side of the story. Monsanto's viewpoint is mentioned, without any slanting language, so this article doesn't show a great amount of bias. The story is very relevant as the Supreme Court is taking action on the subject right now.

This article shows no indication of bias, however facts are listed without giving any source of where they came from. For example, the author lists several states that have recently seen wolverines, but does not indicate how she knows this information. This news article is a relevant piece of information for people living in the western states where wolverines have been wandering to, again, for the article gives an indication that these may be endangered animals. Hopefully, people can take this information to use common sense not to trap or kill the wolverines. This article merely lets the public know that wolverines are currently being studied, but the article that I would recommend over this one is the final result of the ... More »

This article is very well balanced in that it simply explains what is occurring in Texas between the Aransas Project and the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. Members of both groups were quoted or cited, as well as a member of the Fish and Wildlife Service. The author does not sway toward one side or another, but tells the facts and leaves it up to the reader to decide which Texan group is right in this debate. The article relates somewhat to the overall picture regarding the migration of birds, power plants, and climate change, but is not the pain point of the article.

This piece was very emotionally charged and biased toward mustang advocates. While the point was to mainly show how BLM skews their numbers and creates myths about the health of the land, there is nothing but opinion coming from the advocates of mustangs. Only a brief segment brought his scientific and historic evidence that supports the mustang. However, while much of the argument is opinion, the strongest evidence for the side this piece takes is that a law was created in the early 70's and is now being completely ignored. It makes one question how this could possibly be occurring and who is really in charge?

After reading the comments on the article, one cannot argue that the article didn't use facts. However, the facts which were used may not be the most reliable. The article was not opinionated, just poorly researched. Most of the article focused on BLM numbers, but toward the end of the article, the other side of the story is given, such as the mentioned 10% birth rate compared to BLM's 22%. While it is a controversial issue, most numbers and quotes come from BLM statistics and the people who work for the gentling program. This is the side that the article favors. The history of the acts on horses is presented and there is some discussion of the problems in the wild life, however the largest focus is on the inmates ... More »

From the first sentence to the last, this article is charged with emotional language, which pushes the reader to find the same sympathy for the horses as the author. Although the language follows the author's beliefs, she gives many sources and lists facts, such as how many deaths there have been (directly from the BLM website) and how many horses have been involved in round-ups. While it is okay to ignore the emotional language of the article, one must not look past the facts presented, which alone may be strong enough to pull out the emotions the author wants from the reader. The article does not show the whole picture, but rather focuses on a small part of the controversy over mustangs. This article should only be recommended ... More »

The beginning of the article discusses what is going on with the courts and discussion of genetically modified foods, however, halfway through, there is a major turn to the personal beliefs and arguments of the author. The article is clearly biased, although it gives very good reason and plenty of fact to be so.

The author does not use persuasive language himself, but specifically chooses to include facts pertaining to his side of the argument. Facts are facts, so this isn't particularly bad journalism, however the other side of possible discussion isn't mentioned, such as why genetically modified foods or seeds are being used in the first place. This could slightly even out the article. Direct quotes from experts are used, which is helpful in knowing it is a reliable source of information. Overall, the discussions were unorganized. I wasn't sure what the overall point of the article was beside that Monsanto is "bad" and GMOs might be unhealthy.

This article is very relevant because it discusses an area that is often forgot about in climate change - natural gas emissions from cows. It may be somewhat biased toward the side advocating the use of spring grasses as feed, but it lists the facts and mentions the financial problems associated with this form of feed. The article only presents two to three different actual cases of the effective use of spring grasses as feed. The first case is even an organic farmer, which isn't a good representation of the whole population of cattle ranchers. This would make it difficult to say if the entirety of cattle ranchers can also benefit from spring grasses.