Source Comparison

Sean Culligan
English 1102-10/22/2016
Key components that make up a strong academic research group usually include integrity,
credibility and among other things responsibility. Most news outlets cast themselves with the
responsibility of finding the truth and presenting their viewers the most honest reporting. Which
is why to analyze sources I chose to review an article released by the Environmental Protection
Agency on Oil Pollution Policy and another from the news outlet The Guardian which covered
the recent drilling in the Australian Bight region. After reading both authors work, its evident that
the EPA prides themselves with more care on backing up their information, clearly presenting the
data, and integrating this into their reasoning.
Jennifer Lamb is the author of the article published by the EPA, Jennifer lamb wrote for
the Emory law journal in a few volumes. Lamb also wrote a book on environmental ethics called
the NOLS wilderness ethics. NOLS is the national Outdoors Leadership School which serves to
help teach people further outdoor education. Lambs contributions to both the EPA and NOLS
show her relative association with this field of study. Her merit comes from her involvement in
the environmental movement and continued research in the field. As someone of the
Environmental Community Lamb has more credibility to write about pollutants and effects as to
the average writer. Her knowledge on the subject gives her existential knowledge to present to
the viewer instead of an opinion with little to no evidence to back it up.
David Ritter of the guardian, is also of public renown he is the chief executive officer at
Green Peace Australia Pacific. Hes also contributed to the Faculty of Law of the University

Western Australia which both give him a strong standpoint for speaking for the people in a
concerned manner. Ritters, also wrote countless pieces for the Australian Broadcasting Center,
although not all appear to be of academic sorts. Ritters involvement in community affairs helps
him speak at the forefront of public concern, However, Ritters lack of experience makes him
unqualified for the topic. Ritters lack of work in this field does not mean his opinion is invalid
however he could bolster his opinion with stronger evidence. His other works such as Great
barrier reef: Whos profiting from the destruction and devastation show his relativeness towards
the subject.
Jennifer Lambs article came from an excerpt taken from a journal release by the EPA
which undergoes vigorous review. The Environmental Protection Agency has extremely high
standards for publishing ones work. Using the EPA Quality Programs higher requirements are
met for things like research conducting and data collection. The assumption of the program is to
ensure quality research from familiar and notarized documentation. The criteria gets even more
rigorous for outside parties, when they submit data to the EPA, the EPA conducts quality
management techniques to ensure pertinent information. Based off what their website states,
Lambs work must have been peer reviewed for quite some time meaning that her work is of a
higher standard because a plethora of people from her field had to support her findings.
Unlike Lamb, Ritters review for his piece was less thorough because it was reviewed
quickly to provide speedy journalism for the public. This does not defame or make Ritters
article any less noteworthy. Although the guardian does not have as much of an editorial process
things like accreditation, the beginning of their policy provides tons of information on a case by
case situation for handling contributions anonymously and publicly. Afterward the policy
reviews how a writers influence must be kept to a minimum highlighting things like corporate

interest, or private interest. Lastly the policy brings up the code of conduct for writers and
freelance work for workers of the guardian.
Although intensive review is necessary for showing the credibility of ones beliefs to
strengthen their statement, evidence is one of the most important ways to persuade. In pages 843
to 844 of Lambs work she clearly identifies five major oil spills done by the same company,
using these five cases and the penalties fined she argues how heavier restrictions are needed. The
constant evidence to then support one of her arguments makes her overall argument much
stronger. David Ritters argument is supported by a few pieces of evidence, although he uses less
evidence he uses each one in a more meaningful way. To demonstrate Ritter brings up the deepwater horizon incident in 2011 and uses a play on public concern to convince people. Lamb
present more clear thoughtful information which is what makes her argument more credible, she
provides the information than she reaches her argument unlike Ritter whose using it to strengthen
what he believes.
Jennifer Lamb presented a more clear and objective piece that bolstered her point of view
on the subject, although David Ritter provided a clear argument his argument lacked substance.
In conclusion Lambs contributions to the EPA were more worthwhile then Ritters contribution to
The Guardian. Her argument carries more leeway in a discussion because of her background and
because of the strong support shes gained from her peers by adhering to the Quality
Management protocols of the EPA.
Ritter, David. Editorial Guidelines. The Guardian. The Guardian, 12 Sept.2012.Web. 25 Oct.
2016

Lamb, Jennifer. OPA or NOPA? Restoring Cooperative Federalism In Oil Pollution

Enforcement. Emory Law Journal. United States. EPA. 2016. Pp.1-7. The journal was mostly
about different protocols that have been enacted over the years and their effects. Many of the
programs like the statutory one have made prosecution from the federal government harder. I
plan on using this to show some of the problems federal laws have toward actively fixing the
situation.