1. In the article Dollars for Docs Sparks Policy Rewrite At Colorado Teaching Hospitals, Propublica reporters Tracy Weber and Charles Ornstein develop a style consistent with one actively willing to serve the public interest. Their constant awareness and investigation of the controversial practices of major pharmaceutical companies such as GlaxoSmithKline, Eli Lilly, and Johnson and Johnson allows them a deeper angle on their story. Furthermore, their endless efforts to transform the act of questioning into socially constructive skepticism provide the public with adequate bits of information regarding the ongoing instances of corporate corruption. Accordingly, the public interest benefits as a result. Their contact with faculty members of the University of Colorado - Denver, mixed with investigators specifically focused on the Dollars for Docs database, which targets biased doctors who take money from pharmaceutical companies for promoting their products, serves as a prime example of the ways in which accurate journalism is based on the “who,” not always the “what” associated with the story. This also displays the ways in which the best journalism involves actively going out and pulling stories out from the bottom up, instead of just waiting until certain issues become popular before covering them. Although journalism and the term “public interest” have not been as closely associated as they should be, as of late, those who face every angle of an issue and show complete dedication to a story best serve the general public.
2. In the article Family Tree An Essential Element of Heart Health, Mary Kuhlman of the Public News Service describes the roots and causes behind heart diseases in both men and women throughout the country. As a journalist, Kuhlman maintains the ethic of keeping specific, knowledgeable contacts, particularly with doctors and medical officials from Ohio State University. Not only does she keep these contacts in order, but also she does so in a way that provides readers with an insider angle that proves beneficial to their health. However, I feel that her article is not skeptical enough, as it is essentially a retelling of her findings. For example, many of the quotes used within the story, all from the same source, Amy Sturm, a genetics counselor at Ohio State University, are redundant, describing the same exact points that are already included. But at the same time, to dismiss the article as merely a piece of propaganda would serve as nothing more than a meek overgeneralization. This piece of writing gives unique slices of detail about a commonly discussed and always relevant issue in a way that is precise, concise, and unmistakably open, despite its room for improvement. At its very heart, the article is well intentioned and shows a great interest in the human condition.
