Pandora's Box

       USA Today's Editorial Board wrote an article called "The terrorist's iPhone: Our view" written February 20, 2016. This article focused on the argument on weather Apple should cooperate with the national government and use its technology to unlock a private cell phone. This is directed to everyone concerned with the safety of their personal information, but also to the government and Apple. The Editorial Board sat down on video and debated their personal views on the topic. They then only took the concepts they agreed on and made it their final argument.

       Their final argument to weather Apple should or should not comply with the government was that Apple should cooperate, in moderation. The Editorial Board of USA Today collectively stated, "The best outcome to this showdown might be a compromise that keeps a single-use-only key confined to Apple's headquarters, combined with legislation that limits government access to extraordinary scenarios in which lives are at stake." I think this is a relatively good argument showing that there might actually be a way to solve this problem without upsetting the government or Apple.

        I believe they had proper evidence to back up their reasoning as well as their solution. What made this a strong argument was what they said in response to their own solution. They themselves came up with problems and questions that might come along with their solution indicating it can always be altered to fit better with the public opinion. Another strong side to this argument is the fact that they explained how their thoughts may change and there questions may be answered as more information is presented. As far as credibility, the authors are chosen by USA Today one of the biggest new papers established right now. According to my research, USA Today is listed a credible source for all to use. Based upon this information I believe this source would not appoint a group of people who are not credible to represent there newspaper.

Fact or Fiction

     I read a resent article by Glenn Kessler and Michelle Ye Hee Lee concerning the sixth Democratic presidential debate between Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton. The article focuses on the some of the so called "facts" Sanders and Clinton argued during the debate.

     The article has chosen a few statements from each candidate and then depicts the sources and statistics they use to back their claim up. To start off, Bernie Sanders seems to make all his statements towards helping the middle class and getting the justice they deserve. As much as I would like for his claims to fix these problems to be true, they are just not reliable. The authors of this article found that every use of statistics Sanders used was either unreliable or out of date. Hillary Clinton on the other hand, decided to take a much more aggressive approach and focus on the down falls of Sanders. She was said to have "pushed" some of the content a little too far, but most of her facts and sources were reliable.

     I think this article is worth reading because we are so close to having to make our vote for president and we deserve to see the truth behind each candidate we may or may not support. It is critical for voters to vote on pure facts rather than old data and information that has been stretched out of context. I think there should be an article like this on all presidential debates so that everyone will have equal knowledge behind what the candidates are actually saying.