News Critique
This assignment is based on Online Lesson 3, which includes Chapter 3 of the textbook. You should work through Lesson 3, including the exercises, checking your answers against the model answers provided, before you begin the assignment.
Directions: Following these directions and the detailed directions on the next page, write a well- organized, coherent critique of the report on page 3. Doing some internet research (reading other news reports about the subject and/or finding out more about the subject and sources) may help you to see the weaknesses in the report assigned. Be sure to cite the sources you use, whether or not you use direct quotations. Use in-text citations or footnotes.
Your critique should be a carefully structured essay, not an item-by- item run-down of the media checklist. See the Guidelines for Writing a News Critique from Lesson 3.[unique_solution]
In your critique:
- begin by stating what impression is created by the news report. (See online lesson 3 for explanation and examples of “impression”.)
- provide adequate and relevant reasoning to support your criticisms.
- end your critique by stating your overall judgement of the news report, based on the criticisms you have already made.
Maximum length: 500 words. This will require that you write concisely.
Format your assignment as outlined in the separate document Directions for All Assignments. Please use yourlastname as the filename for your Word attachment.
Reminder: Work must be entirely your own, and not the result of collaboration.
Reminder: The news report to critique is on page 3
Page 2 of 3
Help with the Assignment: Detailed Directions
- Begin by noting the impression conveyed by the news report. ‘Impression’ is explained in the lesson 3 online notes.
- Coherent organization. Discuss one criticism at a time, and use paragraphing to organize your ideas. One criticism per paragraph is a good plan. To indicate a new paragraph, indent the first word of the paragraph. Your critique should be carefully organized, not a run-down of the media checklist items. Lead with the most serious problem(s) and make it clear which are most serious, and why.
- Correctly name the criticisms, using the terms provided in lesson 3 and the text.
- Support each criticism adequately. Making a criticism places the burden of proof on you to fully support your judgements by providing reasons. See lesson 3, “Using the Media Checklist to Write a Critique”, pages 15-17.
- Make criticisms specific. E.g. If you said the report is topically incomplete, does it suffer from a lack of balance or lack of sources or lack or background, or missing connections, or several of these? Each requires distinct support. E.g. To support a charge of lack of balance, you need to indicate what perspectives about a disagreement have been omitted or given less emphasis than others. (And there can be more than two perspectives about a disagreement.)
- End with your overall judgement of the reporting, based on the criticisms you have already made.
- Write from the perspective of the reflective consumer of the news. (“It’s a great report because the headline is catchy” or “It’s a poor report because the headline doesn’t capture our attention” suggests a different perspective, not that of the reflective consumer of the news.)
- To save you some time, here are several Health Canada resources you might find helpful for background, but don’t limit your research to these sources.
New Canada Food Guide: https://food-guide.canada.ca/
Previous Canada Food Guide: https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/hc-sc/migration/hc-sc/fn-an/alt_formats/hpfb-dgpsa/pdf/food-guide-aliment/print_eatwell_bienmang-eng.pdf
History:https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/canada-food-guide/about/history-food-guide.html#a2007
The News Report to Critique is on the Next Page
Page 3 of 3
New Canada Food Guide Anti-Meat, Alarms Food Industry
January 24, 2019
Health Canada has replaced its 2007 Eating Well with Canada’s Food Guide. The rainbow visual familiar to so many Canadians is replaced in the new Canada’s Food Guide, released this month, with a colourful image of food on a plate.
Some food producers are concerned that the new guide will affect their industries, and could negatively impact the health of Canadians.
Tom Kootstra, the chairman of Alberta Milk, says Health Canada is targeting animal-based proteins unfairly, and prioritizing vegetarian options for “ideological reasons.” “Initially they [Health Canada officials] were reluctant to hear from industry … because of the perceived bias that these groups would bring to the conversation. But I think they need to realize we all come in with our biases and the obligation of Health Canada is to consider the science,” Kootstra said.
The president of the Dairy Farms of Canada, Pierre Lampron, warned that the new recommendations will hurt the dairy industry, and “risks harming Canadian consumers by creating confusion about the nutritional value of dairy”.
In compiling previous versions of Canada’s Food Guide, Health Canada was accused of being influenced by food industry groups. After food industry complaints about the guide, the recommended number of meat and dairy servings in the 1990s edition was increased.
Canada’s first food guide, called “Canada’s Official Food Rules”, was created in 1942, during the Second World War. It included rules to discourage people from consuming foods needed for export during the War. Eight transformations have followed, with the most recent until this week being the 2007 guide. The 2007 Eating Well with Canada’s Food Guide featured four food groups: vegetables and fruit; grain products; milk and alternatives; meat and alternatives. The “meat and alternatives” group had been a revision from the 1992 Guide’s “Milk Products” to acknowledged other sources of calcium. That guide’s suggestion that fruit juice ‘counts’ as a serving of fruit or vegetables received criticism from dieticians and other health professionals.
The updated document, established through consultations with the public and health officials but with no one-on-one meetings with industry representatives, states that Health Canada recommends: “Regular intake of vegetables, fruit, whole grains and protein-rich foods, especially plant-based sources of protein.”
Plant-based proteins contain different forms of dietary iron than meats (non-heme versus heme) and the two forms are absorbed into the body differently. While there are ways to get adequate iron from plants, Tom Lynch-Staunton, rancher and government relations manager with Alberta Beef Producers, is concerned that the new rules could be confusing. “We don’t want people to be misled thinking they’re getting the equivalent amount of nutrients” as they would from dairy and beef. “Let’s say you’re eating lentils versus a piece of beef … we know the iron in the lentils will be harder to absorb and you won’t be getting essential nutrients.”