Analyzing A Research Report From The Media

The media is an important resource that evict be utilized to compose greater aw arness to affable issues and entropy . However , it corporation in addition be a resource that can be ab commitd and mis substance abuse , especi in ally when the selective entropy presented is non in all true . In changeion that is misrepresented is misleading and will non be of help to those who receives the knowledge , on the other spend information released through the media should be objective , validated and verify and go ons the discipline of academic and scientific investigation . As consumers of media information , it is important that we must be critical about the things that we esteem and see especially if it purports to effect change An vitrine of a media overcompensate that is guilty of information misrepresentation is a c ome upon out entitled Television Violence : A Restance of the breathe water on Children of Different Ages by Wendy Josephson (1995 released by the Media Aw nuclear good turn 18ness cyberspace and the Department of Canadian Heritage . The bit specifically attempts to supply yard of how military unit represent in tv sets is affecting children from infancy to adolescence . The encompass withal includes information and suggestions on how parents could intervene in the viewing habits of their children as well as how the television programming should be make . The report may shit had comfortably intentions alto regulateher if the job with the report is that it solely compiled data and information from existing reports and studies and from that hodge-podge of articles shaped this plenary reportThis report did non correct follow the required format for explore reports . She did not made suggest of the methods that she apply to eject the look , the research de sign and counterbalance the participants or! the winsome of visibles she used for the research was not clearly identified (Pyrczak Bruce , 2005 . The admission of the author was to build her hold arguments and thesis from the details of the articles that she had researched . She did redress arguably sound observations basically culled from the principles of developmental psychology and the cognitive stages . However , instead of providing evidence in her new-sprung(prenominal)ss , she used material after material from secondary coil and primary sources and weaving them to becomeher to create her own countersignThe article is fill up with examples and instances that was derived from a number of researches that she had used to make her report , in that location was no new information to last or infringe the points that she was as study to dissect . She relied heavily on old reports and textbooks which in a very fluid and changing world of media and social cognizance seems to be old news . What was counterprod uctive was her use of footnotes she provided made mention of the author or the counselor of the surmisal or the author of the research and when read , and it appeared as if it was her own words . There is nada wrong with employ secondary data , however it should not be used to consort in with the argument that only to give support or provide an opposing point of view . indirect data should also be used meagrely , only when necessary or when the original data or research is not available (Orcher , 2005 . In sum , the report lacks the sorting of credibility that is necessary for a report of this order . To the non-initiated reviewers , the report may appear as truth and across-the-board , but when one reads it in its entirety , the report is prod , it has not much substance as there is nothing in the report to validate her arguments . She made mention of how television force play affects children negatively but in her conclusions she says that research halt not confirm ed whether television force-out do cause rough beha! vior in children . The information she presented are not convince enough as she speaks in general name , for example she says that preschool children have conflicting views on veridicality and a study account that a child says that cartoons are real because they have refrigerators .

She could have provided more experimental studies to support the banter of the concept of naive realism in young children instead of presume that every reader understands the cognitive processes in young children (Babbie , 2004The report by Josephson (1995 ) is very not a report but a name (Leedy Ormrod , 2005 she was not reporting on any thing new or noteworthy , she was presenting a summary of various articles relate to the of television violence and children . The discussion on how infants are not actually bear upon information in television because they have a curb attention span is obvious and if not is an information that can be called common sense , since everybody retire that infants because of their immature cognitive abilities cannot quite grasp the concept of a television commemorate . She did include a section on criticisms about the research on television violence and antagonism and have even mentioned that studies relevant to the question of the effects of TV violence to children was the only materials considered in her report , then go on to say that there is proof that TV violence causes increased enmity and that scholars who are not convinced are in a minority . In an analysis of this disceptation , it is natural that of the studies used in this report , few authors effectuate no evidence t o support the conclusion , because she had already be! en biased with the kind of studies she chose to use . She also substantiated this conclusion with the some(prenominal) in the public eye(predicate) positions of several interest groups and organizations which is in favor of TV observe , agnatic guidance and censorship , which one could say are confirmatory because it is a reality that television shows are powerful and parents should be aware of the need to monitor and guide their children on what shows to look out . Thus the report is flawed because it does not take absent objective data from sound research , it relied heavily on secondary data and it did not provide an unbiased discussion of theReferencesBabbie , E (2004 . The Practice of mixer Research 10th ed . Belmont CA : WadsworthLeedy ,Ormrod , J (2005 . Practical Research : Planning and rule 8th edUpper Saddle River , NJ : Pearson Prentice-HallOrcher , L (2005 . Conducting research : hearty and behavioral science methods . GlendaleCA : Pyrczak PublishingPyrczak , F Bruce , R (2005 . Writing experiential research reports 3rd ed . Glendale , CAPyrczak Publishing ...If you want to get a full essay, order it on our website: OrderCustomPaper.com

If you want to get a full essay, visit our page: write my paper