"Which Media Do You Trust?"

1. I did not like that the article heavily relied on a list of statistics because the study size was only ten thousand people out of the many millions who are exposed to the media. I don’t believe statistics are a good source of evidence because the majority of people, including myself, knows very little about the nuances of statistics. I agree that the people have rightly lost trust in the media. The article reflected my own distaste with current journalism. The article was difficult to read because the font was too small and the statistics would have been better suited in a chart.

2. “Which Media Do You Trust?” argues that our peers are our best source of information and that the media is no longer trusted. The writer supplements the latter part of the argument using statistics. However, the premier focus of Glaser’s article is edified primarily by opinion. The evidence that people do not trust certain media outlets is entirely convincing because the percentages mentioned are unacceptably high. The evidence that blogs are a more trustworthy media outlet lacks sufficient substance. Glaser’s argument seems to be derived from abstract democratic ideals. I could counter the statistics on the basis that the study size was too small for such a topic. While Glaser does acknowledge that certain blogs are not trustworthy, I could easily argue that a computer and a blogger account do not qualify anyone to be a journalist. I could also argue against the “feel good” message that many democratic forces will work together towards an ultimate truth using contradictory historical accounts. I could say that Glaser is using a bifurcated argument by saying that media must be either trustworthy or untrustworthy and only one or the other is acceptable. Altogether, Glaser’s argument lacks sufficient edifying evidence to thoroughly convince someone to turn to blogs as a source of media.