Article 1: • Full citation and abstract (include link if exists) 人民日报 2011-9-27 023版让公众与科学更亲近边晓璇王珏; People's Daily Sep 27 2011 (No link is provided) (Abstract is described in the question below) • What is the main point and the purpose of the article? 2011诺奖获得者现身北京活动即将举行，吸引了大批科学家来华。主办方希望通过举行类似活动提高群众科学素养。诺奖获得者认为中国科学家获诺奖仅是时间问题，且对中国科学的发展充满期待。In 2011, China has invited Nobel laureates to come to China and attend a scientific discussion forum. The holder of the event hopes to improve scientific knowledge of general public. These Nobel laureates believed that it's only a matter of time before Chinese win the Nobel Prize, and they seemed to be positive about science and technology development of China. • Does the way the article is written encourage you to take sides on the issue? Explain. No. This article only describes the event that Nobel winners visited China and gave lectures, which is an objective description of what happened, and this is not involved with bias and prejudice. 本文陈述客观事实，并不存在立场问题。 • 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. This article doesn't describe air pollution issues. But a Nobel laureate believed that only innovation can solve the air pollution problem in Beijing. 本文并未集中讨论环境问题，然而一位诺奖获得者提出只有创新才能解决空气污染问题。 • What bias did the author bring to the writing of this article? I don't think this article is biased. Reasons are described in the third question. • How (if at all) are health disparities, or other equity issues addressed in the article or report? Health disparities or equity issues are 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?
Article 2: • Full citation and abstract (include link if exists) 新华每日电讯 2011-11-4 第016版常江要享受果实也要应对痛楚 Xinhua Telegraph Nov 4 2011 • What is the main point and the purpose of the article? 文章对北京市环保局的污染评价标准提出了质疑，认为中国的标准与世界卫生组织的标准存在出入。然而，在批判的同时，作者又认为在工业化和城市化的进程中，资源短缺和环境污染并不是新鲜事，而是进步的一个过程。 This article criticized the air quality standards made by Bureau of Environmental Protection of Beijing because it's different than the standards from WHO. However, at the same time, the author also claims that air pollution and resources shortage are common in the process of industrialization and urbanization. People must overcome these problems to live better life. • Does the way the article is written encourage you to take sides on the issue? Explain. I don't think this article is written to encourage readers to take sides because it simply expresses the viewpoint of the author. 本文并没有立场问题，因为作者在陈述他本人的观点。 • 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. Government official: WHO 's standards of particulate matter. 世界卫生组织对pm2.5做出了严格的规定，而在我国标准中完全忽略了这一项，仅仅统计直径小于2.5微米的可吸入颗粒物的数量。 • What bias did the author bring to the writing of this article? I don't think this article is biased. Reasons are described in the third question. Also, the supporting evidence seem to be persuasive when the author used data from WHO and compared that to Chinese government's standard. • How (if at all) are health disparities, or other equity issues addressed in the article or report? Health disparities or equity issues are 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?
Article 3: • Full citation and abstract (include link if exists) 人民日报 2011-10-11 第012版科普达人开动“谣言粉碎机”陈星星程聚新 People's Daily Oct 11 2011 • What is the main point and the purpose of the article? 近来互联网时代，谣言传播加速。不少科学谣言漫天飞。然而，一群科普达人们在果壳网上通过撰写科普文章对近300条谣言进行证实或是证伪，吸引超过十万名粉丝关注。Recently, a lot of rumors are spread over internet. However, a group of science lovers try to educate general public by writing articles judging these rumors. Currently, they have attracted the attention of over 100000 people. • Does the way the article is written encourage you to take sides on the issue? Explain. This article is written to describe a fact, which doesn't encourage readers to take sides on the issues. Besides, as describing a group of people and their behaviors are simply a matter of fact, there are actually no sides. 由于本文是叙述文，并不存在立场问题。 • 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 doesn't focus on air pollution, nor does it make any claims on air pollution. • What bias did the author bring to the writing of this article? I don't think this article is biased. Reasons are described in the third question. • How (if at all) are health disparities, or other equity issues addressed in the article or report? Health disparities or equity issues are 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)
人民日报 2011-9-27 023版让公众与科学更亲近边晓璇王珏; People's Daily Sep 27 2011 (No link is provided)
(Abstract is described in the question below)
• What is the main point and the purpose of the article?
2011诺奖获得者现身北京活动即将举行，吸引了大批科学家来华。主办方希望通过举行类似活动提高群众科学素养。诺奖获得者认为中国科学家获诺奖仅是时间问题，且对中国科学的发展充满期待。In 2011, China has invited Nobel laureates to come to China and attend a scientific discussion forum. The holder of the event hopes to improve scientific knowledge of general public. These Nobel laureates believed that it's only a matter of time before Chinese win the Nobel Prize, and they seemed to be positive about science and technology development of China.
• Does the way the article is written encourage you to take sides on the issue? Explain.
No. This article only describes the event that Nobel winners visited China and gave lectures, which is an objective description of what happened, and this is not involved with bias and prejudice. 本文陈述客观事实，并不存在立场问题。
• 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.
This article doesn't describe air pollution issues. But a Nobel laureate believed that only innovation can solve the air pollution problem in Beijing. 本文并未集中讨论环境问题，然而一位诺奖获得者提出只有创新才能解决空气污染问题。
• What bias did the author bring to the writing of this article?
I don't think this article is biased. Reasons are described in the third question.
• How (if at all) are health disparities, or other equity issues addressed in the article or report?
Health disparities or equity issues are 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?
Article 2:
• Full citation and abstract (include link if exists)
新华每日电讯 2011-11-4 第016版常江要享受果实也要应对痛楚 Xinhua Telegraph Nov 4 2011
• What is the main point and the purpose of the article?
文章对北京市环保局的污染评价标准提出了质疑，认为中国的标准与世界卫生组织的标准存在出入。然而，在批判的同时，作者又认为在工业化和城市化的进程中，资源短缺和环境污染并不是新鲜事，而是进步的一个过程。 This article criticized the air quality standards made by Bureau of Environmental Protection of Beijing because it's different than the standards from WHO. However, at the same time, the author also claims that air pollution and resources shortage are common in the process of industrialization and urbanization. People must overcome these problems to live better life.
• Does the way the article is written encourage you to take sides on the issue? Explain.
I don't think this article is written to encourage readers to take sides because it simply expresses the viewpoint of the author. 本文并没有立场问题，因为作者在陈述他本人的观点。
• 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.
Government official: WHO 's standards of particulate matter. 世界卫生组织对pm2.5做出了严格的规定，而在我国标准中完全忽略了这一项，仅仅统计直径小于2.5微米的可吸入颗粒物的数量。
• What bias did the author bring to the writing of this article?
I don't think this article is biased. Reasons are described in the third question. Also, the supporting evidence seem to be persuasive when the author used data from WHO and compared that to Chinese government's standard.
• How (if at all) are health disparities, or other equity issues addressed in the article or report?
Health disparities or equity issues are 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?
Article 3:
• Full citation and abstract (include link if exists)
人民日报 2011-10-11 第012版科普达人开动“谣言粉碎机”陈星星程聚新 People's Daily Oct 11 2011
• What is the main point and the purpose of the article?
近来互联网时代，谣言传播加速。不少科学谣言漫天飞。然而，一群科普达人们在果壳网上通过撰写科普文章对近300条谣言进行证实或是证伪，吸引超过十万名粉丝关注。Recently, a lot of rumors are spread over internet. However, a group of science lovers try to educate general public by writing articles judging these rumors. Currently, they have attracted the attention of over 100000 people.
• Does the way the article is written encourage you to take sides on the issue? Explain.
This article is written to describe a fact, which doesn't encourage readers to take sides on the issues. Besides, as describing a group of people and their behaviors are simply a matter of fact, there are actually no sides. 由于本文是叙述文，并不存在立场问题。
• 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 doesn't focus on air pollution, nor does it make any claims on air pollution.
• What bias did the author bring to the writing of this article?
I don't think this article is biased. Reasons are described in the third question.
• How (if at all) are health disparities, or other equity issues addressed in the article or report?
Health disparities or equity issues are 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?