What is the main point and the purpose of the article?
The main point of the article is that the “authoritative statement” or “expert view” should be coherent with the fact and the concern of the general public. The purpose of the article is to raise awareness of corresponding experts or government officials to more responsible of what they say otherwise the government would lose its credibility from the public.
Does the way the article is written encourage you to take sides on the issue? Explain.
The article uses 3 examples where government officials fail to convey the correct and detailed information to the public and then cause the outburst of discussion on the Internet. The article encourages me to think that the government didn’t provided misleading information but merely weren’t adapted for the new demand of the public.
List the sources the author(s) use to support the claims on air pollution (i.e. scientific evidence, expert, government official, citizens, etc.). Provide names and short descriptions.
The article references claim of one government official with its name unknown. The official claims that “Foggy days don’t equal to polluted days” and Beijing air quality “has improved compared to itself”. The claim was regarded as very inaccurate and triggered vehement criticism online.
What bias did the author bring to the writing of this article?
The article intends to cover the failing of reveal correct and accurate information by contributing that to fail of providing information according to the needs of the public. The government should provide the accurate information in the first place.
How (if at all) are health disparities, or other equity issues addressed in the article or report?
No, it’s not addressed in the article.
What three points, details or references from the article did you follow up on to advance your understanding of the issued and actors described in the article?
Full citation and abstract (include link if exists)
潘俊强, 权威说法必须“对接”公众感受，http://opinion.people.com.cn/GB/16150655.html, 2015-10-21
Junqiang Pan, Authoritative statement must be "docked with" public feelings
, http://opinion.people.com.cn/GB/16150655.html, accessed 10/21/2015
What is the main point and the purpose of the article?
The main point of the article is that the “authoritative statement” or “expert view” should be coherent with the fact and the concern of the general public. The purpose of the article is to raise awareness of corresponding experts or government officials to more responsible of what they say otherwise the government would lose its credibility from the public.
文章的主要观点是，“权威说法”或“专家观点”应该与事实和公众的关注一致。本文的目的是提高相应的专家和政府官员对他们说的话负责任的程度，否则政府将失去公信力。
Does the way the article is written encourage you to take sides on the issue? Explain.
The article uses 3 examples where government officials fail to convey the correct and detailed information to the public and then cause the outburst of discussion on the Internet. The article encourages me to think that the government didn’t provided misleading information but merely weren’t adapted for the new demand of the public.
本文采用了3例子。例子中政府官员没有能够把正确详细的信息提供给公众，使讨论在互联网上爆发。文章鼓励我认为，政府没有提供误导性信息，但仅仅是还未适合大众的新的需求。
List the sources the author(s) use to support the claims on air pollution (i.e. scientific evidence, expert, government official, citizens, etc.). Provide names and short descriptions.
The article references claim of one government official with its name unknown. The official claims that “Foggy days don’t equal to polluted days” and Beijing air quality “has improved compared to itself”. The claim was regarded as very inaccurate and triggered vehement criticism online.
文章声称引用一位政府官员，名字未知。该官员称，“雾天不等于污染天”和北京的空气质量“自己与自己比有进步”。该声明被认为是非常不准确的，并在网上引发激烈批评。
What bias did the author bring to the writing of this article?
The article intends to cover the failing of reveal correct and accurate information by contributing that to fail of providing information according to the needs of the public. The government should provide the accurate information in the first place.
本文想通过把提供错误的信息归咎于没有迎合公众需求的信息来掩盖政府没提供正确和准确的信息。政府应该提供在准确的信息。
How (if at all) are health disparities, or other equity issues addressed in the article or report?
No, it’s not addressed in the article.
What three points, details or references from the article did you follow up on to advance your understanding of the issued and actors described in the article?