Biases and Sources in Newspaper Articles About the Coronavirus

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

The theme of the coronavirus crisis is frequently discussed in media sources by individuals and professional organizations. Some authors prefer to identify a problem and offer solutions or give recommendations, and some people like to develop critics and underline the negative aspects of the issue. In his article “Coronavirus Is Harming the Mental Health of Tens of Millions of People in the U.S., New Poll Finds,” written for The Washington Post on April 2, 2020, Achenbach shares recent findings of the virus and its impact on mental health. Winch introduced his “Loneliness, Anxiety, Grief – Dealing with the Mental Impacts of the Coronavirus” in Boston Globe on April 21, 2020, to explain personal and public responsibilities. Both authors create argumentative writings and argue the consequences of the virus on human health and relationships. To predict the growth of the COVID-related mental health problems, the authors of the two news articles discuss the pandemic and its main characteristics but use different biases and sources, which leads to diversity in judgments.

COVID-19 is one of the urgent topics for analysis because of the necessity to take actions and responsibilities, and Achenbach and Winch are the writers who build different biases around health and actions. On the one hand, “it’s normal for people to be anxious and worried amid a highly disruptive health emergency that is shot through with uncertainties” (Achenbach). The coronavirus is unpredictable and hard to control, and people have to cooperate, communicate (distantly), and exchange available information to predict the growth of complications and health-related problems. On the other hand, “anxiety, sleep disruption, irritability, drops in mood, and even depression – all on a global scale” (Winch). Therefore, people expect governmental support to solve their mental health changes. These two articles prove that the coronavirus is dangerous, and the impossibility to think about the future frustrates and challenges millions of people around the world.

To strengthen their positions, Achenbach and Winch have to address additional sources and mention different opinions, so the former uses the Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF) findings, while the latter is interested in developing his subjective opinion. As well as many professional organizations and experts, the KFF decides to calm down society and show that a certain decline in worries about the COVID-19 crisis is observed (from 62% to 53%) (Achenbach). The author does not neglect that the situation remains unclear and poorly investigated, but the contributions cannot be ignored. In his turn, Winch wants to know, “How much damage our closest relationships will sustain by the time the crisis is over remains unclear.” He tries to understand what governments and institutions could do to offer effective solutions but fails to refer to credible sources and recent statistics. The main argument in this article is based on personal judgments and subjective knowledge.

In general, after reading the articles about the connection between the coronavirus and mental health changes, it is possible to support and criticize the authors, their biases, and their sources. Compared to Achenbach, who presents reliable statistical data from the KFF, Winch’s position is full of personal worries and guesses that many steps have to be taken to change the situation. The government solely cannot be responsible for the crisis, and ordinary citizens should consider their contributions. At the same time, the virus is neither health nor a social problem but a combination of factors that must be managed under effective leadership. The articles chosen for this analysis serve as good motivation for the government and ordinary citizens to look at the coronavirus from a different angle and think about new ways of coping with COVID-19.