The Center of Public Integrity recently published “Commentary: the deeper meaning of Flint,” which briefly describes the environmental racism embedded in institutions like the EPA’s Office of Civil Rights that enable public health crises like the Flint Water Crisis.
Initially, it was unclear how “newsworthy” this article was. What new information was given and why is this relevant now (besides the fact that the Flint Water Crisis is an ongoing issue)? After looking through links mentioned in the article, it appears that this may have been piggy-backing on an article written the same day in The Hill, in which J. Mijin Cha discusses the EPA’s history of negligence and dismissal toward communities of color. The author adds onto the discussion by stating that reporters have found no evidence of a formal investigation having ever been made by the EPA on environmental discrimination.
Frankly, the roughly 200-word summary was disappointing. Most of the information regarding the depth of institutional environmental racism was condensed into brief sentence summaries or linked-in articles. Perhaps this was written to confirm and validate the criticism on the inaction by the EPA’s Office of Civil Rights; nevertheless, I felt mislead by the catchy title and assumed an in-depth analysis or that there would be more updated information. In addition, I was wary that the all of the linked-in articles (besides The Hill article) came from the Center of Public Integrity. Not that the Center of Public Integrity is an unreliable source, but I wonder about how this affects the credibility of the article.
- Was the article comprehensive enough? What other information do you wish they would have provided?
- Was there enough engaging, convincing evidence (e.g. statistics and outside sources)?
- Do you think the article intentionally included sources from the same site? Would it have been more beneficial to use other outside sources?