Critical evaluation of news stories in politics and business

¶ … UK lawmakers consider probe into transparency of mining firms

This is a story that has recently made the headlines on the UK law maker's consideration to probe into the transparency of mining firms. This story was highlighted by Reuters and fox business among other online magazines. It focused on how the British government is really considering looking into the transparency of the mining and oil firm listed in London. This issue has been highlighted at the market miners that are emerging by corruption probes. This is an issue that has generated fear among lawmakers as it has dented the reputation of the stock market (Ferreira-Marques, 2013).

The news story was reported clearly and accurately only a certain level. It clearly reported on the proposal that was made by the chairman of the committee for business, skills and innovation to inquire into the issues such as governance and anticorruption in the oil and mining companies. It also stated clearly when the probe would begin and the people who were supposed to give evidence on the issue. In general it reported that the issue to be looked into was corruption. It also reported on the fact that the inquiry would go ahead and various things that it would cover, these include looking at the benefits got from having major extractive companies being listed in London. Another thing was whether Britain should go ahead and sign up as part of Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative and at the same time examine the role of oil and mining companies in the efforts of the community and environment (Ferreira-Marques, 2013).However, it was not sufficient in terms of depth and breath. It did not highlight on the exact date when the probe would start rather it vaguely stated it would start before the parliamentary session ended in July. It also did not clearly mention the exact reason for carrying out the probe instead it just stated that the probe will go ahead.

There were various facts that were ignored when the report was written. For instance there was no opinion on the people to give evidence that was given. The names of these people were simply stated and there was nothing on whether or not they agreed to give the evidence. It also did not indicate how the evidence that will be found is going to be used. It also did not state how long the probe will be expected to last and when the information from the probe will be made public. It also did not give an insight on what would happen to these people who were to give evidence incase the allegations against them are confirmed.

There was no alternative perspective that was considered in the story. It only highlighted the views of the parliament on what they intend to do which was to carry out the probe. There were no considerations of what the views held by the rest of the world regarding this issue. There were no assumptions that were made in the story. The story was based on facts and there were even quotes of statements that had been made by the chairman of the probe and a parliamentarian. There was a lot on emphasis on the probe really happening but nothing at all was reported on how the probe was to benefit UK as a nation. It is very important to make distinctions when carrying out a critical evaluation in that one is able to clearly understand the importance of carrying out the evaluation (Skousen, 2010).