Food Stamp Changes Good thing but the Slant makes the News Bad
Not much happens in this country that goes on in this nation without someone finding out and many times the news either thrills you or bums you out depending on how it is disseminated. How it is disseminated is called the slant, meaning that whoever is writing the article can make it sound like it is something you should be worried about, upset about or happy about. Personally I don’t think this is what real journalism is supposed to be about but even certain cable news channels are slanted one way or another. Many conservative leaning and liberal leaning entities may report many of the things that are right with an article but soon afterwards add in a little bit of sting for the other side making those of like minds enjoy more the reading. The only problem with that is you have just short-changed your readers by not letting them form their own opinion which may be fine for those who are afraid to think for themselves but can prove quite deadly to those who don’t. Take the example of the story below.
It is titled “Maine Just Changed Their Food-Stamp Policy… Every State Should Do This” from the Conservative Tribune and in it is reported “the state of Maine is requiring able-bodied adults who are capable of working to do so in order to qualify for food stamps. “People who are in need deserve a hand up, but we should not be giving able-bodied individuals a handout,” LePage said in a statement. “We must continue to do all that we can to eliminate generational poverty and get people back to work. We must protect our limited resources for those who are truly in need and who are doing all they can to be self-sufficient.” “There is no excuse for able-bodied adults to spend a lifetime on welfare at the expense of hard-working, struggling Mainers,” he said in his State of the State address, according to Mad World News. “That is not what I call compassion.” Only about 12,000 people out of the state’s population of 1.3 million, or less than one percent, are affected by LePage’s decision to let the waiver expire.” “As a result, adults 18 to 50 years old with no children and who are able to work must do so or volunteer for 20 hours each week. Otherwise, their benefits will be limited to three months over a three-year period, according to The Boston Globe”.
Now as a person who cannot seem to find work and has been unemployed since 2009, I depend on food stamps to eat and at least feel like one third of a man but the reasoning given by the Maine Governor does make valid sense but here comes the slant. The Conservative Tribune had a perfect article here just reporting the facts but like all modern day reporting, they could not help but throw in a few digs at the other side. Digs like “Citing the recession, President Barack Obama issued a waiver of the federal work requirement in 2010 and — despite continued claims from Democrats that the economy is humming along — has not lifted it. Republican Gov. Paul R. LePage, who won re-election handily on Tuesday, allowed the waiver for his state to expire. More states should follow Maine’s lead. In fact, Obama should retract his waiver of the federal work requirement altogether”.
Now the way this was made to sound, you would think that President Obama had no reason to ask for this wavier nor have no good reason to ask for it to be lifted. If you took this same article and found it in a liberal presentation, you might hear that the reason it was asked for is because of the economy but even more important was veterans returning from war had no other means to make ends meet and needed to receive food stamps in order to have even a smidgen of dignity. You may hear that the reason it has not been asked to be lifted is because nationwide these same veterans are still struggling trying to secure employment and survive.
My point being, instead of having to read one article from two different sources, wouldn't it be nice to be able to pick up one source and get both sides equally? Yeah I know but call me naive.