I chose to critique an article that introduces Measure O, which will show up on the upcoming voting ballot. Measure O, if passed, would require all cups of coffee sold in Berkeley to be "fair trade", organic, or shade-grown. The author, Charles Burress, introduces the controversial issue with evidence of those for and against the measure. However, he does not provide the readers with information about the ecological and societal effects of the status quo for those who are not familiar with the present situation regarding the coffee industry. .
Burress hooks the intended audience, the voting population of Berkeley, by stating a drastic effect of voting for either side. He explains that those voting for O would "put a Starbucks barista behind bars"; those voting against it would "starve the child of a peasant coffee farmer". .
Voters are told, the author says, that if passed, the measure would deprive consumers of their freedom of choice. This is a fact. Following this valid statement, however, was one which was influenced by the author's opinion. He says, "Not supporting [measure O] is equated to destroying the rain forest." This statement is biased. The author would not bring up this point--his point-- if he did not support measure O, as it is not used as evidence of another's point of view; rather, it is his own statement obviously leaning towards the opinion of one side. .
It is obvious to the readers that Burress outlines the opinions of those on both sides of the issue. In his article, he introduces the opinions of some people or organizations who are in the public eye. For some, he simply lists whether the person or group is for or against O. For others, he includes quotes and/or summaries of what they have said to further support their views. There is one exception to the opinions that were expected to be expressed by those mentioned in the article (the typical opinion of being for or against the measure).