Commentary #4

I really enjoyed the start of the proposal, however the beginning felt more like an introduction for your ethical argument than for your proposal argument. It needs to be more of a transition from the end of your ethical argument to your thesis of the proposal. Your thesis is a good solution for the problem you described in the ethical argument. I wish you could be a little more specific when you state that an "unbiased worldwide free media with free independent journalists" is the solution. I must say that you are specific; but because of the clarity that every thesis needs, I feel like you should add some more details. A skeptic could also doubt the effectiveness of this solution. I think most people would agree that it is hard to take bias out of journalism. And if this is worldwide, there are so many interests by different countries that it could be very challenging to take bias out of journalism. You might have to present how we will achieve that.

            One aspect that I felt lacking was the argument that supports your proposal. There were not a lot of reasons presented that you think will solve the problem. The body paragraphs talk more about historical situations where countries were being censored by their oppressive government. More than anything, the paragraphs call for a need of your solution, however they do not tell the audience anything about the effectiveness of your particular solution. For your body paragraphs, I think you should go more into detail about what it means to have an "unbiased worldwide free media". I think it would be good to go into the minute details to show how this is an alternative method to the current status of the media. Maybe give some hypothetical situations and compare how your version of the media covers it compared to today's faulty media. Maybe also talk about how we can take out the bias from news coverage.

            I think one paragraph should be included that describes other solutions than the one you presented to your ethical situation. Afterwards, you do not necessarily have to refute them, you just have to justify that your solution is the best one. By doing that you dispel some of the counterproposals that the audience might have and you show the effectiveness of your proposal.

            You have a clear problem that can be solved and I feel like your solution is a good one for this problem. I think you need to argue more on behalf of your solution and give reasons that show your solution is the best. You might have to explain how we can achieve a "unbiased worldwide media with free independent journalists". Show how this media compares to the biased media that we have today. Layout your case why you believe "unbiased worldwide media" is the best solution to your problem.

For Soudabeh Sabour