BIAS IN THE NEWs
The bias found in the "Indian's Child Labor Act"
The two sites:
The Guardian's story
The FSRN's story
As I was reading this, both stories make the same point; the act is completely useless and make the whole poverty in India worse. Both agrees on the terms of that education is the key to breaking poverty. However, there is different attitudes in the stories, from the victims. The children in the Guardian's story sound like they WANT to be working and away from school. However, the FSRN's story, it sounds like the children were forced to work by their parents instead. The FSRN story focuses on the morals of children's safety to convince the reader that the whole act is vicious and pointless. The Guardian, however, focuses on the gullibility of children. The Guardian had also told the readers about the government ironically slashing the education budget, even though the government encouraged balancing out school and work. The FSRN story mentioned nothing of that sort. The Guardian has statistics, but the FSRN has more expert quotes. The news covered up most of my questions, and is rather fair. The Guardian tried to show the government's side on this situation, but they focused on the effects of the law change. (The Guardian is better than FSRN, since FSRN has more bias.)
The two sites:
The Guardian's story
The FSRN's story
As I was reading this, both stories make the same point; the act is completely useless and make the whole poverty in India worse. Both agrees on the terms of that education is the key to breaking poverty. However, there is different attitudes in the stories, from the victims. The children in the Guardian's story sound like they WANT to be working and away from school. However, the FSRN's story, it sounds like the children were forced to work by their parents instead. The FSRN story focuses on the morals of children's safety to convince the reader that the whole act is vicious and pointless. The Guardian, however, focuses on the gullibility of children. The Guardian had also told the readers about the government ironically slashing the education budget, even though the government encouraged balancing out school and work. The FSRN story mentioned nothing of that sort. The Guardian has statistics, but the FSRN has more expert quotes. The news covered up most of my questions, and is rather fair. The Guardian tried to show the government's side on this situation, but they focused on the effects of the law change. (The Guardian is better than FSRN, since FSRN has more bias.)