http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/24/health/research/24abuse.html?ref=science
The article topic looked interesting to me, but I was prepared to be dissappointed. Much of the articles I find in the NY Times science section are overwrought with data and terms, so much so that I feel I need a dictionary to get through it. Still, I think the author did a good job of explaining a seemingly difficult to understand topic. To think that there would be actual scientific evidence to support the widely accepted idea that children who suffer abuse have increased risk for mental illness, depression, and suicide, is mind-boggling to me.
I found his breaking down of the information to be perfect, specifically when Carey said "When people are under stress, the hormone cortisol circulates widely, putting the body on high alert. One way the brain reduces this physical anxiety is to make receptors on brain cells that help clear the cortisol, inhibiting the distress and protecting neurons from extended exposure to the hormone, which can be damaging." I am no fan of science, and still was attracted to this article topic, and so I can imagine much of the people reading this article would be in a similar position. It woudln't be right if science articles were written by scientists, for scientists, with no in between.
My understanding of suicide, mental illness, and depression are greater now that I've read the article, and so I can honestly say I learned something, which doesn't happen with every article I read.
Still, I think the article could have been enhanced significantly if the author included one personal account to accompany the idea, such as someone who experienced abuse as a child and grew up depressed. Then a study could have been done on this specific person, and more examples and data could have been given. That way it would be less general.
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
A Few Mistakes
"Mistakes, I've Made A Few" says Bush
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/13/us/politics/13bush.html?ref=politics
I like this article. I was worried at first because most articles that have to do with President Bush (well, I shouldn't say most, but there have been a substantial few) have hints of (or outright use of) bias. Now that his presidency is at an end, I expected journalists would be even more lax in their articles on him, not taking any special care in presenting both opinions of him. This journalist, however, did a fair job. She made sure after pointing out a question Bush would not answer, that it was the only one he declined to answer. She could have easily left that out to make it seem as though President Bush was denying the press or trying to avoid certain topics, but she gave the full picture, and that's something I respect.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/13/us/politics/13bush.html?ref=politics
I like this article. I was worried at first because most articles that have to do with President Bush (well, I shouldn't say most, but there have been a substantial few) have hints of (or outright use of) bias. Now that his presidency is at an end, I expected journalists would be even more lax in their articles on him, not taking any special care in presenting both opinions of him. This journalist, however, did a fair job. She made sure after pointing out a question Bush would not answer, that it was the only one he declined to answer. She could have easily left that out to make it seem as though President Bush was denying the press or trying to avoid certain topics, but she gave the full picture, and that's something I respect.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
