Question

Select a policy topic that you find interesting. It could be the death penalty, distribution of COVID-19 vaccines, the Voting Rights Act, the Patriot Act, or another topic you want to learn about. Search online to read newspaper articles or watch videos from reputable sources about the policy. Find at least five sources and cite them..

Agenda setting: What event occurred to place this policy on the agenda?

(3 points)

Consider the same public policy you used in Question 1. Using newspaper articles or official government websites only, determine which committees in the House and the Senate had jurisdiction over this policy.

Committee hearings: Which committees had jurisdiction? Which party had the majority on that committee?

(4 points)

Policy change: Did your policy have a sunset provision? Did Congress reevaluate the policy and make amendments? How did it change?(4 points)

Feedback loop: Consider the feedback loop shown in this lesson. Using newspaper articles and official government websites or reports, fill in the details for each of the five stages of the policy process. The five stages are agenda setting, policy formation, decision making, policy implementation, and evaluation.(5 points)

Cost-benefit analysis: Search online for a public policy (it can be the same one!) and study its projected costs and projected benefits. Was the policy economically beneficial? Whether it was or not, do you agree that it was the right choice? If you think an economically losing policy was a good choice, what do you base that view on?(4 points)

Question
Media bias: Use the media bias chart linked here to find two sources of media from within the green box at the top, one from the right and one from the left. Go back to your topic and look at media coverage from your two sources. Do they differ? How? Why?(4 points)

Answer 1

I chose the U.S. COVID-19 vaccine distribution policy (the federal/state/local plan to allocate, ship, and administer COVID-19 vaccines beginning in late 2020). Below I summarize the answers to each question and cite at least five reputable sources (newspapers and official government sites).

Sources (selected)
- CDC — COVID-19 Vaccination Resources and data, ACIP guidance, and MMWR evaluation:
- CDC, COVID-19 Vaccination: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/index.html
- MMWR: Estimated number of COVID-19 deaths averted by vaccination — United States, Dec 2020–Nov 2021 (CDC): https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7146a2.htm
- U.S. Department of Health & Human Services / Operation Warp Speed materials:
- HHS, Operation Warp Speed press materials: https://www.hhs.gov/coronavirus/explaining-operation-warp-speed/index.html
- Food & Drug Administration — EUAs for the vaccines (examples):
- FDA press release, Pfizer-BioNTech EUA (Dec 11, 2020): https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-issues-emergency-use-authorization-first-covid-19-vaccine
- Congressional Research Service (CRS) overview of development and distribution (report summary): https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF11851
- Government Accountability Office (GAO) reports evaluating vaccine distribution and federal actions: https://www.gao.gov/coronavirus/covid-19-vaccine-distribution
- Newspaper coverage documenting rollout problems, policy debates, and updates:
- The New York Times, multiple reporting on early rollout problems and later coverage (example): “As Vaccinations Begin, U.S. Is Set to Deploy a Plan That Is Unfinished” (Dec 2020) — https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/13/us/politics/covid-vaccine-distribution.html
- The Wall Street Journal, coverage of logistics and federal/state coordination (example): “U.S. Vaccine Distribution Faces Logistical Hurdles as Shipments Begin” (Dec 2020) — https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-vaccine-distribution-faces-logistical-hurdles-as-shipments-begin-11608114400

1) Agenda setting: What event put this policy on the agenda? (3 points)
- The COVID-19 pandemic itself — especially the rapid surge of cases and deaths in the U.S. in spring and summer 2020 — put vaccine development and distribution on the political agenda. Two milestone events made vaccine distribution an urgent public-policy issue:
- The WHO declaration of COVID-19 as a pandemic (March 11, 2020) and the subsequent U.S. public-health emergency declarations focused policy attention on measures to prevent deaths and reopen the economy (background in CDC and HHS materials). (CDC; HHS)
- The issuance of Emergency Use Authorizations (EUAs) by the FDA for the first COVID-19 vaccines in December 2020 (Pfizer-BioNTech on Dec 11, 2020; Moderna on Dec 18, 2020) created an immediate operational need: how to allocate, ship, and administer limited initial vaccine supplies. (FDA; NYT)
Sources: CDC vaccine page; HHS Operation Warp Speed; FDA EUA announcement; NYT reporting.

2) Committees with jurisdiction; committee hearings: Which committees had jurisdiction and which party held the majority on that committee? (4 points)
- Relevant congressional committees with jurisdiction over vaccine development, funding, oversight, and distribution included (official committee jurisdiction pages and oversight hearings documented in newspaper reporting and committee websites):
- House Committee on Energy and Commerce — jurisdiction over public health policy, the Department of Health and Human Services, FDA, and public-health emergency issues. During the 117th Congress (2021–2022) the Democrats held the majority and Rep. Frank Pallone (D) was chair. (House E&C jurisdiction page; committee press coverage)
Source: House Energy & Commerce jurisdiction/press pages: https://energycommerce.house.gov/about/jurisdiction
- House Committee on Appropriations (Labor-HHS-Education Subcommittee) — jurisdiction for appropriations that funded vaccine programs and distribution support. In the 117th Congress Democrats held the majority; Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D) chaired Appropriations. (House Appropriations site)
Source: House Appropriations: https://appropriations.house.gov/about
- Senate Health, Education, Labor & Pensions (HELP) Committee — jurisdiction over public health, NIH, CDC, and oversight of HHS pandemic response; Democrats (Sen. Patty Murray as chair in 117th) had majority control in 117th. (Senate HELP page)
Source: Senate HELP Committee: https://www.help.senate.gov/about
- Senate Finance Committee — jurisdiction over Medicare/Medicaid and certain health programs and funding mechanisms; in the 117th Congress Democrats were majority (Sen. Ron Wyden chair). (Senate Finance page)
Source: Senate Finance: https://www.finance.senate.gov/about
- Senate/House Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs & House Oversight and Reform also held hearings on distribution logistics and federal roles. Majority parties on those committees matched the chamber's majority (117th: Democrats). (Committee pages and GAO/press coverage)
Source: GAO and committee hearing pages; newspaper coverage (NYT, WSJ).
- Committee hearings: These committees held oversight and briefing hearings throughout late 2020–2022 on topics such as Operation Warp Speed, supply chain and logistics, equity in allocation, and federal-state coordination. News outlets reported on many hearings and the majority party led agendas and questioning (see NYT and WSJ coverage and committee calendars). (CRS and GAO document oversight activities.)

3) Policy change: Did the policy have a sunset provision? Did Congress reevaluate and make amendments? How did it change? (4 points)
- Many of the emergency authorities and temporary programs used for vaccine distribution were time-limited or tied to the public-health emergency (PHE) and funding acts rather than a single permanent statute:
- The federal vaccine program relied on emergency authorities (e.g., EUAs from FDA and use of the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness [PREP] Act liability protections), and on special funding packages passed by Congress (CARES Act, Consolidated Appropriations Act, American Rescue Plan). These funding authorizations were for specific sums and used to buy vaccine doses and support distribution; they did not create a permanent program with an open-ended mandate. (HHS; CRS)
- The Public Health Emergency declaration (and many flexibilities such as broader telehealth rules and certain reimbursement flexibilities) was renewed periodically by HHS through much of 2020–2022 and then ended on May 11, 2023 — effectively causing many emergency flexibilities to lapse unless reauthorized or made permanent. This functioned like a sunset for emergency authorities. (HHS/CDC)
- Congress did revisit funding and oversight multiple times: after the initial CARES Act funding and the $10+ billion allocations for Operation Warp Speed, additional funds were provided (e.g., American Rescue Plan, further appropriations) to expand vaccination sites, outreach, and global donations. These represent amendments in funding and implementation rather than a single statutory amendment to one distribution law. (CRS; GAO)
- Net change: the policy evolved from an emergency, federally-coordinated procurement and allocation model (late 2020) to a broader vaccination campaign with expanded funding, increased federal support for state and local sites, the federal pharmacy program, and eventually transition away from emergency authorities as the pandemic phase changed. (HHS; CDC; GAO)
Sources: HHS Operation Warp Speed page; CDC; CRS report; GAO vaccine distribution oversight; press coverage (NYT).

4) Feedback loop: Fill in the five stages (agenda setting, policy formation, decision making, policy implementation, evaluation) with details from news and government sources. (5 points)
- Agenda setting:
- Trigger: rapid spread of SARS‑CoV‑2, high U.S. case counts and deaths in 2020 and the WHO pandemic declaration; public demand for a vaccine and economic reopening. (CDC; WHO reported widely; NYT coverage)
- Policy formation:
- Federal policy work included Operation Warp Speed (public–private partnership to accelerate development and manufacturing), CDC planning guidance for allocation and distribution, and ACIP (Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices) development of prioritization recommendations for initial limited doses (healthcare workers, LTC residents). Congressional staff and committees considered funding options. (HHS OWS; CDC ACIP guidance; CRS)
- Decision making:
- FDA decisions to issue EUAs for vaccines (Pfizer, Moderna) in December 2020; HHS and CDC decisions on allocation and federal pharmacy program rules; congressional appropriation decisions (CARES Act and later bills) provided funding. These formal decisions authorized mass vaccination efforts. (FDA EUA press releases; HHS/CDC allocation announcements; Congressional appropriations reports)
- Policy implementation:
- Federal procurement and distribution of doses to states and territories; state and local public-health departments and pharmacies run vaccination clinics; federal partners (CDC, FEMA) supplied technical assistance and set up mass vaccination sites; the federal pharmacy program enabled retail-pharmacy vaccinations. Implementation faced logistics challenges (cold chain, scheduling, data reporting), uneven uptake, and debates over equity. (CDC vaccination program pages; GAO reviews; NYT/WSJ reporting)
- Evaluation:
- Ongoing evaluation by CDC (vaccination coverage data, adverse-event monitoring), GAO (reviews of distribution effectiveness, equity, and oversight), and news organizations documenting successes and failures. CDC MMWR research estimated substantial numbers of deaths and hospitalizations averted by vaccination; GAO reports detailed weaknesses and suggested improvements. These evaluations informed policy adjustments (e.g., increased outreach to underserved communities, changes in allocation strategies, and additional funding). (CDC MMWR; GAO vaccine distribution pages; newspaper coverage)
Sources: CDC, FDA, HHS, GAO, CRS, NYT, WSJ.

5) Cost-benefit analysis: projected costs and benefits — was it economically beneficial? Do you agree with the choice? (4 points)
- Projected/actual costs:
- Federal funding for vaccine development and purchase included Operation Warp Speed funds and other appropriations. Exact totals for vaccine procurement, distribution support, and related programs ran into the tens of billions of dollars (HHS/OWS and appropriations summaries document the amounts allocated across CARES Act, CR, and later bills). (HHS/CRS summary)
- Projected/observed benefits:
- Public-health evaluations estimate very large benefits in lives saved and disease averted. For example, CDC MMWR (Dec 2021) estimated that during Dec 2020–Nov 2021 COVID‑19 vaccination averted hundreds of thousands of deaths and millions of hospitalizations in the United States, representing both substantial human-health benefits and large economic value by avoiding medical costs and enabling economic reopening. (CDC MMWR)
- Economic assessment:
- Given the relatively modest federal outlays (tens of billions) compared to the economic cost of the pandemic (estimates in the trillions from lost GDP, unemployment, morbidity, and mortality) and the CDC estimates of deaths/hospitalizations averted, the vaccination program appears strongly economically beneficial. GAO and CRS analyses indicate that the investment in vaccines and distribution was cost-effective relative to the large societal costs of uncontrolled pandemic spread. (CRS, GAO, CDC)
- My view:
- I agree that the investment in vaccine development and distribution was the right choice economically and on public-health grounds. Even if the initial rollout had logistical problems (reported extensively by news outlets), the downstream benefits — lives saved, healthcare costs avoided, and faster economic recovery — outweigh the costs. Support for vaccination also included non-economic values (reducing morbidity and suffering, equity concerns) that further justify the policy even when precise dollar figures are hard to measure. (CDC MMWR; GAO; NYT/WSJ coverage)
Sources: HHS/OWS; CDC MMWR; CRS; GAO.

6) Media bias: Using the media bias chart (green box top — left and right sources), compare two outlets’ coverage of the vaccine distribution policy. Do they differ? How? Why? (4 points)
- Two sources chosen from the “green box” top of the media-bias chart used in the course (one left, one right):
- The New York Times (left-of-center, top-quality): extensive critical coverage of initial federal and state rollout problems, attention to equity issues, personal stories of people frustrated by scheduling and access, and analysis pieces arguing for stronger federal coordination. Example pieces focused on problems in early administration and on unequal access in communities of color. (NYT vaccine rollout reporting: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/13/us/politics/covid-vaccine-distribution.html)
- The Wall Street Journal (right-of-center, top-quality): reporting emphasized logistics and supply-chain challenges, the technical complexity of cold-chain storage, and sometimes focused more on operational performance, private-sector logistics contributions, and critiques of state/federal management rather than framing primarily in equity terms. WSJ pieces often stressed solutions and business/logistics aspects. (WSJ vaccine shipment/logistics pieces: https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-vaccine-distribution-faces-logistical-hurdles-as-shipments-begin-11608114400)
- Do they differ? How?
- Yes, coverage differs in emphasis and framing:
- NYT tended to highlight human-impact stories, inequities in distribution, and political/administrative accountability (e.g., blaming poor planning by governments), while placing those stories in a public-health and social-justice frame.
- WSJ tended to emphasize logistics, supply-chain issues, federal versus state coordination from an operational/economic perspective, and the role of private-sector firms; its critical pieces were often targeted at operational inefficiencies rather than emphasizing equity narratives.
- Both outlets reported similar factual events (delays, limited initial supplies, EUA dates), but selected different angles and sources (public-health experts and community stories in NYT versus logistics experts, industry sources, and federal officials in WSJ).
- Why the difference?
- Differences arise from editorial priorities and audiences: NYT’s audience and editorial stance center public policy, social equity, and accountability, which shapes how stories are chosen and framed. WSJ’s editorial perspective emphasizes business, operational, and managerial perspectives, so it highlights supply-chain and logistical details and the role of private actors. Both are high-quality sources (green box) and their differences illustrate how selection and framing (not necessarily factual disagreement) produce different emphases in coverage. (NYT and WSJ articles cited above)
Sources: NYT; WSJ.

If you would like, I can:
- Provide direct links to specific NYT and WSJ articles you want to compare (I cited representative examples above).
- Narrow the committee/jurisdiction answer to a specific congressional session (e.g., 116th vs. 117th Congress) and list exact hearing dates and witness lists.
- Summarize GAO/CRS cost and spending numbers with document citations and figures in a table.