The author Walden Size makes questionable claims as an incredible source, the article is reported with missing background information and a misleading lead and headline, and also, the method of the polling/us revering for the study was not representative of the overall conclusion of the study. After reading the article “LLC . S. Students suffering from internet addiction: study”, the credibility of some claims must be assessed.
The primary questionable claim comes from Walden Size, the author of the report, he writes “American college students are hooked on cellophanes, social media and the Internet and showing symptoms similar to drug and alcohol addictions”. This is a claim relating American students cellophane and internet usage as an addiction similar to one with alcohol or drugs. The flaw with this claim is the source, we must assess the credibility of Walden Size before we can accept what he is telling us. Firstly, Size has the opportunity to learn the results of the study conducted by Dry.
Mueller when he is writing his article. He cost likely has direct contact with the people involved in the running the studying and analyzing the results. The next aspect to assess the credibility of a source is ability. Walden Size does not have the ability to make claims related to psychology and addiction when it is not directly stated in the results of the study. This is because he has expertise in journalism and not psychology or any other studies of toxicology or addiction, therefore he does not truly have the ability to take advantage of the opportunity and discover the truth about the claim.
One can assume he is an able source when it moms to journalism, as this is where his credentials and expertise lie, but in this scientific field he does not have ability. Dependability is the last determinant of credibility of a source, Walden Size is not dependable, that is he is not trustworthy and responsible. As a journalist Size may just be trying to make his story as interesting as possible, and without the proper factual evidence to back him up, he is not someone to be blindly trusted in this area of study.
Therefore the claim, “American college students are hooked on cellophanes, social media and the Internet and showing symptoms similar to rug and alcohol addictions” should not be accepted. Although this claim is plausible, it does not have adequate evidence to back it up, and must not be accepted. The design of the study contributes numerous flaws to its results and conclusions. The target population of the study is 200 students of Phillip Merrill College of Journalism from the University of Maryland, yet the results are generalized to all US students. The generalization from such a small sample relative to all American students is questionable.
The results would be deemed more valuable if the sample studied was larger than 200 students, ho were all from the same university, in the same field of study. If students from all different majors at the university of Maryland this would have been a more accurate representation of “U. S. Students”. Furthermore, the measuring instrument was an online blob that was written on by the students who completed the 24 hours of no media. The responses of the students were analyzed by six PhD students teaching assistants using qualitative analysis. The main problem seen here is the anonymity that the online blob provides.
It is not guaranteed that all the students actually went the full 24 hours without sing media, maybe they just pretended and filled out the blob. To improve this the students participating should have been monitored during the 24 hours to ensure they truly did not use media at all. Lastly, journalism professor Dry. Susan Mueller lead the study, and she belongs to the International Centre for Media and the Public Agenda (CAMP). This group could be biased towards the study as they come from the media side, and maybe they like that people struggle to go 24 hours without internet and their cellophanes.
If this was the case they may have learned about ways to increase addiction’ to media devices by conducting this study. If the purpose was to determine if internet Or media usage is serious and warrants attention, the American Psychiatric Association would have been a much more trustworthy source to conduct the study. Further flaws in the article stem from the news reporting of the study. The lead in an article is imperative, it is the bait necessary to draw the readers into the story, but leads are often misleading and inaccurate. In “U. S. Students suffering from internet addiction:study”, the lead is “Cranberry is no joke”.
This is extremely misleading because it is relating media and internet addiction to drug and alcohol addiction when it is clearly stated that the American Psychiatric Association does not recognize the “so-called internet addiction as a disorder”. The problem with the headline is similar to that of the lead. It was a flaw that they used the word ‘addiction’ as we know that internet addiction is not a real disorder, it could be misleading that they used it in the headline of the article, an alternate headline would be “US students can’t go 24 hours without internet/media:study’ or “US students obsessed tit internet: study”.
The last problem with the news reporting of the “Day Without Media” study was its topical incompleteness. There was omission of critical background information relating to the study, how its results were analyzed, and the conclusion of the results. In the study Dry. Mueller comes to the conclusion that ‘the portability of all that media stuff has changed students’ relationships not just to news and information, but to family and friends -? it has, in other words, caused them to make different and distinctive social, and arguably moral, decisions”, yet this conclusion is not included in the article.
It seems strange that the final conclusion of the study is not included in the article, and is very problematic. Overall the article is fairly weak in strength because of the claim made by non-credible source, the flaws in the news reporting such as topical incompleteness and misleading lead and headline, and the method and execution of polling within the study. The author could make improvements in the reporting the results of the “Day Without Media” study, and Dry. Susan Mueller could make improvements in the method and execution of her study.