Stakeholder #2

1. Can you describe this stakeholder in 200-250 words? If they're an individual, vividly describe how they look, what they wear, how they move. Tell us how they sound, how they talk, what their mannerisms are. Conjure them in our mind's eye, by appealing to at least THREE of our FIVE senses. If the stakeholder is an insitution or group, then describe the institution and how it appears in the world. How do people encounter this group or institution, digitally or physically? Describe their website or headquarters or something else that physically represents the group to the world at large.

Dr. Mona Hanna-Attisha is a female pediatrician of the main children’s hospital in Flint, Michigan. She appears to have the height of the average-female in the United States. She has a tan complexion with hazel eyes and lavishing dark hair. The pediatrician has a slightly long nose with a left dimple when she smiles and has a bright smile (she also seems to wear glasses at times). Dr. Mona Hanna-Attisha speaks English and she has an American accent (particularly accent from Michigan). When she speaks in front of the public, Mona tends to cringe her eyebrows when she tends to speak about issues that she finds deeply devastating like children being hurt or in danger. Being someone who is working with children daily, I would assume Dr. Mona Hanna-Attisha must have a high hygiene and as it appears in the bags of her eyes and her occupation as a pediatrician, she must work constantly in her profession and rarely gets rest. Her mannerisms are mainly focused on her hands. In interviews with news stations, Dr. Mona Hanna-Attisha tends to wobble her head and use aggressive open hand gestures when speaking about negative issues like the effects of lead on children.

Unknown "lab coat"  via pixabay
CC0 Public Domain

2. Can you identify THREE specific claims being made by this stakeholder? The claims should be public and about the specific story you're investigating. Provide direct quotes for three different claims or ideas made in public by this stakeholder. Each quote sould be clearly hyperlinked to the original source.

“This is a community-wide trauma that was caused not just by the lead but also by the deceit from government agencies,” she said.

“For almost two years the state had been denying this was an issue. Right when the water switch happened in April 2014, residents were complaining the water was brown, that it looked gross, it tasted gross. And so the moms were talking, the activists, the pastors. Water experts came in and had concerns. And it was deny, deny, deny. And then when we shared our results at our press conference we were attacked. They were like ‘No, this is wrong, you are an unfortunate researcher, you’re causing near hysteria, our numbers are not consistent with your numbers.’”

“People need to go to jail – this was criminal,” she said.

3. Can you explain how valid these claims are? Objectively, how much weight do these claims carry? How credible are they? Be specific. Think about how poorly or successfully the stakeholder cites FACTS, plays on our EMOTIONS, or presents themself as a CREDIBLE actor in the debate.
Most of these claims are somewhat valid. They are heavily carried with objectivity and it plays on your emotions very well. The claims of the government agencies deceiving people is accurate.

4. Can you explain how these claims are similar and/or different to the other stakeholders? Be clear and precise - does this stakeholder have anything in common with others involved in the debate? Who do they have the least in common with? Why?
She is on point with the residents of Flint, Michigan and has little things in common with say Rick Snyder or emergency manager Darnell Earley who signed the switch of the water source of Flint.