“China Will End One-Child Policy, Does Not Give Time Frame” published in the Huffington Post and “Reform to Ease Negative Trend in Population” published in China Daily, the major concerns and reasoning behind the change in the “one-child policy” are discussed. All of the reasons are explained, which eliminates the fairness concern. The Huffington Post allows readers to understand both technical reasons that a change may be made, along with personal opinions such as ones from a middle-aged Chinese mother. The China Daily story uses only facts such as the ability to maintain a labor force to explain why the policy may be changed. Balance is not a major concern in these articles, as there is no “opposite” side. That is, these two articles were only written to inform the public to the possibility of a change from a “one-child policy” in China, to a “two-child policy.”
The China Daily article does, however, also explain possible risks of enforcing a “two-child policy” with a sharp population increase and the “pressure on public resources.” Framing was used in an interesting way between these two articles. The Huffington Post article states how births were “averted”, going into the economic and population reasons for the change, and then states how many are happy because of the change. The China Daily article simply states the facts of why China would change the policy without any opinions or emotional reasons for the change. As for experts, the Huffington Post article interviews Mao Qun’an, a spokesman for the National Health and Family Planning Commission, while China Daily used a professor and the vice minister of the Nation Health and Family Planning Commission.
The story from the Huffington Post allows readers to know the effect that the one-child policy has had on China, as well as stating reasons for a change, and finally ending with a personal opinion of someone who has been personally affected by the one-child policy. The China Daily article appears more trustworthy because it does a better job in explaining all of the causes for the change in policy, without opinions added.