Assignment for 10/8/09

(1)

A fact is something that has been proven. It is based on scientific knowledge and observations. An opinion is someones interpretation of facts. Whether it is true or not true is indefinitely arguable. Not all opinions are equally valid because one must take in to account the opinion giver's education on the subject. An opinion from a 8 year old on quantum mechanics is not as valid as an opinion from a scholar. What the media often tells the general public is their opinion; and opinions may or may not be valid, solely because they are always going to be secondary sources of information.


(2)

The majority of public health care professionals do not support the market perspective because with the market perspective there is a point where low-income families have a hard time accessing the resources needed for health. This is where the market perspective encroaches into taking away a human right. For a public health professional to support this is to contradict the code of ethics.

(3)

With my lifestyle, these "new" media sources have a hard time reaching me, i am always busy, i don't watch very much tv besides pre-recorded shows on my DVR, and i don't surf the web often enough to come across the grassroots pages. I have a slight grudge against every news channel and don't read newspapers besides the Northern Kittitas County Tribune. I feel that i cannot have a valid opinion on the new sources, but i can have an idea. The grassroots pages are probably not funded by a large company looking for a advantage in the market so they probably convey views other than the market perspective. The other sources however seem to have more potential to have the market perspective because they often require a large sum of money to get them broadcasted and the money has to come from somewhere. The general public needs to know facts, not opinions; this is where the problem lies. If the average consumer wants to get to the facts they really need to look for themselves and find scientific tests and results that are done with double-blinds and not funded in anyway by one party more than the competitor. Finding these is not easy because often after they are done, they are published in journals, not in national news papers, not broadcasted for the public, and often only the scientist's peers even hear about the publication. The consumer just does not know how or where to start.