Objectivity

Objectivity: What is the author's point of view? Summarize the argument being presented. What is the purpose of the site?

The author seems to be right winged.  He is responded to Froma Harrop's article about tax cuts and creating jobs.  In Harrop's article, she accuses Republicans of frightening workers by making them feel like "wards of the rich," and he argues this saying that that is not true and that maybe Republican just understand the idea of a totally free market.  This is a website of a collection of right-winged writers expressing their opinions.

• What is the author's / speaker's socio-political position? With what social, political, or professional groups is the speaker identified?

         Libertarian and conservative.

• Does the speaker have anything to gain personally from delivering the message? 

         I don't believe so; he was just expressing his opinion.

• Who is paying for the message? Where does the message appear? What is the bias of the medium? Who stands to gain?

         It is a non-compensated, independent  group of writers.  The bias is placed on the right side of the spectrum and is defending the Republicans against the attacks from Democrat writings.  It is trying to persuade non-right voters to consider the thought.

• What sources does the speaker use, and how credible are they? Does the speaker cite statistics? If so, how were the data gathered, who gathered the data, and are the data being presented fully?

         There is no actually citing.  Everything is just in-text cited and mostly just responding to the other writer.

• How does the speaker present arguments? Is the message one-sided, or does it include alternative points of view? Does the speaker fairly present alternative arguments? Does the speaker ignore obviously conflicting arguments?

         He addresses the other point of view and agrees with it partially, but then explains where he disagrees.  

• If the message includes alternative points of view, how are those views characterized? Does the speaker use positive words and images to describe his/her point of view and negative words and images to describe other points of view? Does the speaker ascribe positive motivations to his/her point of view and negative motivations to alternative points of view?

        He seems slightly condescending with the way that he spoke of the alternative view, but he did, however, agree with the statement partially.