How will the Coverage Help?
       This article is about a law pushing for parity of coverage to all mentally ill people. Parity to physical illness. In the article, the writer violated many of the nine principles and seven yardsticks of journalism. The writer violated truth, loyalty, explanation, and make the important interesting.  The journalist never tells how the law would benefit those with mental illnesses. She am not saying in any way that I am against helping people with mental illnesses.
       First, truth was violated because in the article, it never explains that the coverage- from health insurances-given to the mentally ill will let them get the help they need. How will they get to the doctors if they cannot drive themselves? How will they know how to take the medication they need to help their illness? How do they know the treatment will work? They were not truthful when they said that coverage will help them, we will not know that until coverage is provided. We have no examples of where this has worked. This was not complete, therefore we do not know if it is true.
       Second, the principle of loyalty to the citizens was violated. They never pushed to seek advice from a psychiatrist. Getting professional input from psychiatrists will give the patient and the public more information about the coverage that may effect them. The public should be able to understand since they are the tax payers. This journalist talked to the trade group, American Health Insurance Plans, a trade group for health plans. This writer did not ask the trade group how parity will solve the problems of the mentally ill.
       Third, the journalists violated explanation because they never explained in the article how the community might be affected by this coverage. Many people would like to know if it will improve our community. For example: If someone with a mental illness were to receive medication and sell it instead of consuming it, the person buying the pills could make the community worse because of their addiction. The person with that mental illness would not benefit and their condition would not improve.
        Fourth, the journalist violated make the important interesting. She believe this journalist did so because the author shared about a story about April Blevins- a lady with bipolar disorder that did not get the support she needed. In Blevin's story, we learned about how she felt, but it never explained how additional coverage will help her outcome. In the article Blevins says, "But you suffer and your family suffers." The writer never told how her family suffered nor did Blevins ever explained if her few treatments helped her with her disorder.
        In conclusion, this writer did do a great job of getting the amount of sources (context), just maybe not the right sources.




http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/09/21/law-pushes-for-parity-in-mental-health-coverage-/2847889/