 |
| Ziv, Omer. "Some woman on the phone and her personal stalker." 11/11/2008 via Flickr. Creative Commons License. |
I really did stalk them. A few of them have emails from me.
Sources:
- This source is from the science section of Business Insider. Business Insider is a reputable online magazine. Although the story is not business related, it is in the science section, so its relevant and most likely credible.
- The author of the article is Lauren F. Friedman. She studied science journalism at CUNY Graduate School of Journalism, cognitive science at University of Pennsylvania, as well as other studies at Bryn Mawr College. Her degrees are represented in the kind of writing she does. She writes and edits for Tech Insider, and has previously written and editted for Psychology Today, The Forward, Philadelphia City Paper, Scientific American, Scientific American Mind, The Philadelphia Inquirer, and OnEarth. She has even made appearances on Good Morning America and The DeBrief to talk about health issues. She clearly has the credentials and experience to make the source credible.
- The story was published on March 4, 2015. The time the story was published is important because the lawsuit was filed the Monday before, only 2 days before. This story gives an accurate perspective of what people were thinking and knew at the very beginning of the lawsuit.
- The story gives a great overview of the events that led up to the lawsuit. It also presents the events that led Nina to sue in the first place, in chronological order.
- This source is off the ABC News Go website. Although news sites will usually lean left or right in the way they present their stories, this is a short news clip on an otherwise reputable site.
- Since it is a video clip, there isn't necessarily a single author. The journalist reporting the story does not say that story is his, so I think therefore the author would just be ABC News. This leaves a little to be desired, but I do believe that ABC news is credible enough.
- The story was published on March 2, 2015; the day that the lawsuit was filed. This is the source that is closest to the immediate lawsuit, so another good representation of what was immediately known on the subject.
- The most important aspect of this source is that there is a direct quote from Nina Pham's attorney. She brings up the fact that Nina's story and lawsuit can greatly affect other nurses, and that is a key aspect to what they are trying to achieve. The fact that Nina's attorney said so herself is very important, because it erases the need to speculate. The public is certain that Nina and her attorney are trying to achieve more than just a settlement.
- This source is off of The Daily Mail's online site. The Daily Mail is definitely less of a credible source. The site includes many pop culture articles and seems to cover news from the UK, US, and Australia, but its main headquarters are in the UK. The magazine is targeted towards women, and it shows in the way that Nina's story is presented. The article gives off much more an "empowerment" tone and emphasizes the emotional side to her story.
- The author is Wills Robinson. He writes for the Daily Mail from New York, which is at least closer to Texas(the setting of the story) than the UK. He studied history and politics at Newcastle University and completed the NCTJ Multimedia Journalism course, which is not necessarily impressive. He has written for several magazines in the UK and Scotland, but he is still young and rather unexperienced. The article is valuable for Nina's quotes and the video of her speaking attached at the end, rather than the content written by Robinson.
- This article was published March 1, 2015; a day before Nina officially filed the lawsuit. At this point, there was news of Nina wanting to file a lawsuit the following day and the kind of struggles she faced.
- As I mentioned above, this article is driven by emotion. It highlights Nina's personal struggles and why she deserves justice. It mentions how her boyfriend left her and how her social life has been affected. It is a good source for Nina's perspective, especially because it includes direct quotes from her and a video of her speaking after she was declared Ebola free.
- I found this source on CBS News. This is a reputable news site, which definitely increases the credibility of the source.
- This source is both a video and an article. The video is a news segment off CBS between the newscasters and Dr. Jon Lapook, a certified physician and chief medical correspondent for CBS. The content that he talks about in the video is his own. As for the article, the only kind of author they have attached is "CBS Inc." This is a definitely a bit weird. I searched and searched for an author but that seems to be the only information. This affects the credibility of the article, but I believe that the video and Dr. Lapook's words are still valuable.
- This source was published on October 13, 2014. This article was published just a few days after Nina was diagnosed with Ebola, and far before she filed the lawsuit.
- This source focuses more on Texas Health Resources and their own statements. The purpose is to question what went wrong; was it the nurses or the protocol? Nina is barely mentioned in this article, which is important in analyzing the other stakeholders.
- This source is off the Dallas Morning News. I may be citing this source quite a bit because Dallas is the setting of the whole story, so this newspaper followed Nina's story very closely. It appears to be a credible source for Dallas News, and the fact that the story takes place so close to home increases the credibility as well.
- The author of this news story is Jennifer Emily. Jennifer studied Journalism with a concentration in sociology at the Indiana University Bloomington. She is a criminal justice and criminal courts reporter for the Dallas Morning News, which makes her well suited to cover Nina's story.
- This story was published on April 20, 2015. This is about a month after Nina filed the lawsuit, so the trial is well underway. The story is about how the judge issuing a "temporary restraining order" in the case the previous Monday, so the time period is everything.
- This source is focusing on the actual lawsuit, which is unlike many of my other sources. There is not much of a preference to either side indicated, just a statement of the facts. The story mentions THR's claims and how they are hoping the lawsuit will turn out for them.
- The Dallas Morning News again. I know I shouldn't be using the same news site as a source too many times, but this newspaper covered Nina's story very well. They were able to get exclusive interviews with her and provide details not many other news networks could. I think this source is incredibly credible, especially for this particular article, because it is a first hand statement from Nina.
- The author of this news story is (again) Jennifer Emily, who's credentials I mentioned above. I think the fact that they have one reporter following Nina's story closely increases the credibility of the article, because Jennifer is well informed on all aspects of the case. She is a criminal justice reporter who presents Nina's case very well.
- This story was published on February 28, 2015. Nina is about to officially file the lawsuit in a few days at this point, but most already know of her intentions.
- This source is probably the most "Nina-centered" of them all. It gives a very detailed account of her experiences in the hospital that she got sick in (Texas Health Presbyterian) and the events that followed, up until her recovery.
- This source is off the CBS News site. CBS news is a credible news site that reports on very relevant "serious" issues. The site is comprised of more meaningful content than pop culture stories.
- The reporter behind the story is Vicente Arenas. He studied journalism at the University of Texas in Austin and was a reporter for several different broadcasting stations before joining CBS News.
- The story was published on October 12, 2014. Nina's name was not even mentioned in the story. It is very early in her diagnosis and the focus is still on why or how the protocol was breached.
- The focus of the story is Texas Health Resources. It includes their first few statements before Nina's name was released. At this point THR is defending itself but the blame is still primarily on Nina and the nurses.
8) Source 8- American Journal of Nursing
- This is probably my most credible source, because it is a journal. The journals motto is "the leading voice of nurses since 1900." It's clearly a reputable source with a long history.
- The author of this article is Laura Wallis. She received her degree from William and Mary and has written and edited for a wide array of media, from articles for Martha Stewart Living to reputable journals like AJN. Her eclectic past is a bit confusing, but I feel that if she was qualified enough to write for a journal she must have the credentials.
- The article was published as a whole in Volume 115 of the journal in June of 2015. The article just states that Nina is planning on suing, so the information is slightly out of date for when it was published since she filed the lawsuit in March. I believe that this is probably due to the fact that it is a journal, and the whole volume was published a whole.
- This article basically gives a brief overview of the events that led to Nina's lawsuit as a whole. I am using it as a source because of how credible the journal is. It can be used as a baseline for my other sources that may deviate in the details of the case. If one of my sources does not match up with this one, I can assume that the author may have misleading information and look back at this source.
9) Source 9- Laboratory Safety Leadership Summit Faculty Page
- This source is by far the most vague, but essential. Nina's whereabouts this year are not well-known, and by that I mean that she seems to be avoiding the radar completely since October 2015. This page is all i could find that is 100% Nina Pham. I'm not even sure if it counts as a real source, but it notes that Nina is a member of the 2016 faculty for the Laboratory Safety Leadership Summit program.
- There is not author to this source.
- There is no published date to this source, but the program takes place February 3-5 of 2016, so it is clear that she was indeed there.
- The main idea that I am going to take away from this is that Nina is still involving herself in health care and is still trying to promote safety for health care providers. In other interviews, Nina expresses that she isn't sure if she will ever work as a nurse or in healthcare again, and this is the only proof I have that despite the unresolved nature of her lawsuit, she is still trying.
- I know, the Dallas Morning News again. In my defense, they have continued to cover Nina's story in great detail where the media has grown bored, and they continue to include information other sources don't have access to. I stand by the credibility of this newspaper.
- The author is again, Jennifer Emily. Her credentials are mentioned above, and as I mentioned before, I believe that how closely she has followed this story from beginning to end only makes it more credible. She is well informed and clearly invested.
- This story was published on March 2, 2015, the day Nina filed her lawsuit. This is in the midst of the climax of the story, when it is still unclear as to how THR will react to the lawsuit.
- The most important aspect of this source is that Nina's full lawsuit as the plaintiff is attached to the end of the story. It is the only source I found that attaches the original lawsuit, all 36 pages, the very day that they were issued. Its a first hand source that the Dallas Morning News continues to deliver.
Now that I have plenty of sources, it's time to produce the final product!
No comments:
Post a Comment