Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Opposing Viewpoints is a series of books on current issues which seeks to explore the varying opinions in a balanced pros/cons debate. The series attempts to encourage critical thinking and issue awareness by providing opposing views on contentious issues.
The Death Penalty: Opposing Viewpoints is a book in the Opposing Viewpoints series. It presents selections of contrasting viewpoints on the death penalty: first surveying centuries of debate on it; then questioning whether it is just; whether it is an effective deterrent; and whether it is applied fairly. It was edited by Mary E. Williams.
Main page; Contents; Current events; Random article; About Wikipedia; Contact us
Terrorism: Opposing Viewpoints is a book, in the Opposing Viewpoints series, presenting selections of contrasting viewpoints on four central questions about terrorism: whether it is a serious threat; what motivates it; whether it can be justified; and how the United States should respond to it.
Sexual Violence: Opposing Viewpoints is a 2003 book edited by Helen Cothran. It presents selections of contrasting viewpoints on four central questions about sexual violence: what causes it; whether it is a serious problem; how society should address it; and how it can be reduced. The book is part of the Opposing Viewpoints series.
Euthanasia: Opposing Viewpoints is a book in the Opposing Viewpoints series, published by Greenhaven Press. [ 1 ] [ 2 ] [ 3 ] A year 2000 edition was edited by James D. Torr, while the previous 1989 and 1995 editions were edited by Neal Bernard and Carol Wekesser respectively.
Indicate the relative prominence of opposing views. Ensure that the reporting of different views on a subject adequately reflects the relative levels of support for those views and that it does not give a false impression of parity , or give undue weight to a particular view.
The fairness doctrine of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC), introduced in 1949, was a policy that required the holders of broadcast licenses both to present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that fairly reflected differing viewpoints. [1]