This week’s blog assignment was to analyze either the health or the science section of an online mainstream newspaper. I chose to look into the health division of the Los Angeles Times. I read this particular article written by staff writer Mary Engel. The story was titled “Autism shown higher in children living in rainy areas”. The story reported the findings of a study in concerns of the autism disorder. The study inspected young kids that were born in Washington, Oregon, and California between the year of 1987 and 1999. While being conscious of matters such as ethnicity and parents’ incomes, the outcome of the research led scientists to believe that children residing in regions with higher percentages of rainfall have greater risks of developing autism. The reports emphasized that the disorder seems to affect mostly three-year-old kids and younger. Results indicated that the autism rate appears to be twice as high in the west coast of Washington and Oregon due to its more frequent precipitation than the east part of those two states.
Engel, in my perspective, covered the topic with a satisfying amount of information. I was content at the fact that her diction included words and phrases like “suggesting” and “possible explanations”. She made sure to bring up the qualifications about the findings by stating, “the association between autism and precipitation has not been clinically proven and that possible explanations need further testing.” Since the story tells of a study that still isn’t quite certain of the causes of the disorder, it’s crucial to mention that the discoveries of the investigation are not fully absolute. By notifying the reader about this uncertainty, the reporter makes her article more trustworthy. Several people, including me, have lost dependability of the media more and more because of their false, deceptive reporting. There are so many statements that are easily taken out of context by journalists, which triggers doubts of whether or not the news we read and hear are true.
Furthermore, the researchers pointed out that autism is a very complicated issue to understand. Knowing that they put so much effort into figuring out the reasons of the disorder and have found potential causes is already a vast progression. Therefore, I say that the article answered my questions about the topic even though the conclusions are not entirely positive yet. I’ve previously assumed that autism was a disorder that is formed genetically. Now I come into the realization that environmental factors play such a significant part in this.
