Methods of Inquiry Second Reflection

Colin Landers
Sep 5, 2018 · 2 min read

One beneficial use of media I have found was an Atlantic article from August 7th, 2018 titled “What Does It Mean to Ban Alex Jones” by Alexis C. Madrigal. I found this article valuable because while it does seem to have a slight bias, it does address some important issues and misconceptions regarding the recent bans on conspiracy theorist Alex Jones. Jones was removed from many social media platforms and streaming services because of his accusations and theories that are seen as harmful to society and offensive. The article addresses the ban, however goes deeper into what exactly his “ban” entails on the different platforms and how he isn’t actually fully banned on the different sites, except seemingly Spotify. Jones was had his profiles and accounts on Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube removed, and had his podcast pulled from Apple and Spotify’s podcast platform. The article addresses the flaws that these bans have, where he may be removed but his website is still easily accessible and sharable, and his podcast can still be manually added through Apple’s Podcasts app. The bias is more anti-Jones and critical of the services that have weak bans on him, however it is understandable from the services point of view because to remove every single piece of Jones’ content would be a massive process that would take an incredible amount of man power and money. Overall, the article is informative, helpful, and a solid use of media.

One article that I found to be a bad use of media is a September 5th, 2018 CNN article titled “Airport security trays carry more germs than toilets, study reveals” by Francesca Street. The article feels very similar to the report on stolen luggage on airplanes because of the sensational title and relatively low and misleading findings. The article finds that security trays have more germs on them than toilets, however there some things that are misleading. First, the study they’re citing is a joint British-Finnish report, and the airport they studied was the Helsinki-Vantaa airport. While this is somewhat beneficial to those going to that airport, it doesn’t actually account for the hundreds of other major airports around the world, and on a US-based news source, it’s not very beneficial to their main audience. Next, only 10% of surfaces they tested actually had results for germs, with the worst one being a small percentage testing positive for influenza. While the flu is relatively serious, it is treatable and not really a cause for worry. On the other side of the argument, 10% is a number that could be lower with a few changes to cleaning techniques, however it means that 90% of things in the airport are perfectly clean. Finally, as with the luggage article, the article isn’t really going to cause change in the world, just maybe in a select few germaphobes. Overall, the article is misleading because of its misleading and unimportant findings for a US audience.