I subscribe a feature of a social media tool, LinkedIn (LinkedIn, 2013) , titled
LinkedIn Influencers. I am periodically sent an email from LinkedIn
Influencers with posts written by individuals they think are noteworthy.
Their most recent post was written by Bill Gates, the Co-chair of the Bill& Melinda Gates Foundation, and is titled Three Things I’ve Learned FromWarren Buffett (Gates, 2013) . In his
post, Bill explains three things he has learned from Warren Buffet over the
years he has known him. I immediately clicked on the link to the post
because I have known about each of these gentlemen for more than thirty years,
and I have learned continuously from both of them.
When I read an online article I look to see if I recognize
either the author or the organization presenting the information so I can
determine if I have enough information to trust what I am reading. I have worked with the company Bill Gates
co-founded, Microsoft, for my entire professional career and he has earned his
reputation and credibility because of many decades of his consistent commitment
to excellence. I have a number of years of positive experience with
LinkedIn; it has continued to provide a valuable product and a commitment to an
ethical experience. Both Mr. Gates and LinkedIn have long-standing
positive reputations, so I took the information presented at face value as
information I can trust.
Another lens I use to look at the data being presented me is
if the material appears to be championing a cause, defending a position, or not
aligned with the description I used to search for what I was looking for.
If this is the case, I need to get additional information in order to
make an informed decision about what I am being presented. Even though I had not heard of The Inverted Pyramid Structure (Purdue OWL, 2013) of
writing in journalism, I had been taught that news stories, whether printed or
verbal, used the format of presenting the most important information
first. As Purdue Owl presented in their
article The Inverted Pyramid Structure (2013) ,
this format provides the most essential information — the Who, What, Where,
Why, and How — being presented at the beginning of the article.
As I read the description of why this structure of
journalism was created, I was reminded of a commonly used phrase Everything Old is New Again. While the inverted pyramid structure of
journalism got its origins in the technology of the telegraph, it is still as
relevant today. With both the
limitations of a tweet in Twitter, or trying to keep a reader from bouncing
(leaving) a webpage after reading the first paragraph, the inverted pyramid
structure serves to help me know if I believe the information I am being presented
is what I am looking for. The article Pump Triggers Three Mile Island Reactor Shutdown, NRC says (Staff,
2012) ,
is a good example of the inverted pyramid structure at work. The first
paragraph tells us what happened and subsequent paragraphs provide additional
details.
In the first paragraph of the LinkedIn Influencers post,
Bill Gates explains the goal of his postings will be to share, with all the
subscribers to LinkedIn Influencers, what he has learned in his career. He follows that up in the second paragraph
with by explaining that his post is sharing several key things he has learned
from Warren Buffet over the years. Both of those pieces of information, along with the credibility Bill has in my mind, served to keep me reading the rest of the post, to continue down the pyramid.
I was introduced to something else new this week. The book Blur: How to Know What’s True in the Age of
Information Overload (Kovach &
Rosenstiel, 2010, p. 34) explains the concept of four
different models of journalism. Two very helpful things came
out of this for me. I hadn’t previously
known about different models of journalism, but when I read about them I
immediately understood some of my frustrations with “news” I have been reading
and hearing. I grew up watching and
reading the news through what I have learned is the journalism model called the
“Journalism of Verification” (p. 36) . I
have been reading and listening to “news” that is being presented using other
models of journalism and have been frustrated because I didn’t know they were
using a different model. The components
of my decision-making process have needed to change but I haven’t known that
until this week.
Something else I hadn’t realized before reading about the
models of journalism this week is that I have been informally applying criteria of
the models of journalism to how I use different tools of social media.
With each tool I use, I “consider the source” and have a goal for how I
use it. For example, LinkedIn is a social
media tool targeted at the network of professionals. In the About Us section
of their company LinkedIn page (LinkedIn, n.d.) they explain: "LinkedIn takes your professional
network online, giving you access to people, jobs and opportunities like never
before. Built upon trusted connections and relationships, LinkedIn has
established the world’s largest and most powerful professional network". This doesn’t mean everything posted on LinkedIn is accurate
and shouldn’t be checked, but the intent of the site, it’s guidelines and
design, all create a more credible foundation.
I associate LinkedIn with the Journalism of Verification (Kovach & Rosenstiel, 2010, p. 36) model of
journalism.
I also use facebook and, based on my readings this week, it
provides me another comparison between the models of journalism. I don’t think of facebook as a tool that has a
strong commitment to verification, accuracy and context as the Journalism of Verification model does, so my strategy for facebook
is not to rely on it professionally or as a credible source for news. I use it personally to catch up on the
activities of my family and friends because, from the perspective of credibility,
I trust what my family and friends are sharing.
Considering the four models of journalism, I would apply the Journalism
of Assertion model (Kovach &
Rosenstiel, 2010, p. 38) to facebook as a tool of social
media. Information is shared
instantaneously, technology supports the sharing to be on almost any electronic
communication device, information isn’t passed through filters of verification
before being shared, and people can say anything they want.
Because there are so many more sources of data for me to
evaluate, and multiple views of many types of information available, I want to
become more like John Crewdson (Kovach & Rosenstiel, 2010, p. 62), who was
committed to looking at multiple places to get a breadth of information, asking
more questions, and challenging conventional wisdom. He didn’t settle on assumptions, he dug for
facts until multiple sources came to the same conclusion. I am going to add a new filter to my decision-making
process, asking the question “Is the information complete; and if not, what is
missing? (p. 60) ” Based on
the answers to my questions and my decision-making strategy, I will be able to
decide if what I am reading is credible and become a credible source for
information with what I write.
References
Gates, B.
(2013, June 12). Three things i've learnded from Warren Buffet.
Retrieved June 24, 2013 , from LinkedIn:
http://www.linkedin.com/today/post/article/20130612065727-251749025-three-things-i-ve-learned-from-warren-buffett?trk=mp-details-rc
Kovach, B., & Rosenstiel, T. (2010). Blur: How to know
what’s true in the age of information overload. New York City, New York:
Bloomsbury.
LinkedIn. (2013). About Us. Retrieved June 24, 2013,
from LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/about- us
Purdue OWL. (2013). The Inverted Pyramid Structure.
Retrieved June 24, 2013, from Purdue Owl:
http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/735/04/
Southern New Hampshire University. (n.d.). Learning
Modules: Module 2. Retrieved June 28, 2013, from SNHU My Blackboard:
https://bb.snhu.edu/webapps/portal/frameset.jsp?tab_tab_group_id=_2_1&url=%2Fwebapps%2Fblackboard%2Fexecute%2Flauncher%3Ftype%3DCourse%26id%3D_6293_1%26url%3D
Staff, C. W. (2012, September 20). Pump triggers three
mile island reactor shutdown, NRC says. Retrieved June 24, 2013, from CNN:
http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/20/us/pennsylvania-three-mile-island/index.html
Hi Sue,
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed your blog and I can appreciate your methodical approach to deconstructing social media posts. You ask good questions about the source, your relationship (if any) to the topic and the way the content is presented.
I liked that you used LinkedIn as an example. It is meant to be a professional network so in my view this raises it up a notch in terms of credibility. I've found LinkedIn to be a useful resource. Most of the contributors and interest groups have great information but I have encounterd some that have a lot of spam and sales pitches whiich dilutes the value of the group.
I was wondering if you saw the same article about Warren Buffet on a friend's Facebook post would you be as inclined to read it?
Just curious....
Susan EM
Hi Susan,
DeleteHmmm, interesting question. I believe the answer to your question is that I would be as inclined to read it because it came from a friend on facebook, and I have been careful about who I add as friends on facebook.
If it was an article I got back as the result of a Google search, for example, I would be less likely to take it at face value.
How about you? What would you do?
Thanks for your comment!
Sue
I also tend to recognize sources I have already checked and determined them to be credible. But, as I read your post I began wondering. Just because I have already checked a particular source—company, website, author—does that mean I should stop there? Once credible, always credible? As I pondered these questions, I came to the conclusion that it might be dangerous to consider a sort as credible simply because I have checked them out in the past. Why?
ReplyDeleteWhat I am about to say may be seen as farfetched, but I believe it is possible. Companies, websites, and writers change. Company leadership may shift, which might cause a change in the company's mission, vision, and even their stance on issues. Where they were unbiased before, they may become biased due to a new partnership with a sponsors who has a political agenda. Websites, unless personally owned are subject to similar circumstances. And, writers can also change. It may be due to personal circumstances or directives from leadership.
What other circumstances do you think might cause a change in the credibility of a company, website, or writer?
Hi Tim,
DeleteI completely agree with you, and I don't think of it as far-fetched at all. The reason I don't is because I have worked in or with marketing and sales for most of my professional career. Not all organizations are as committed to the consistency of their messaging even if their mission and vision haven't changed. Sometimes, people are assigned to speak for an organization without having earned the credibility to do so. Not good!
I also know companies who have changed their mission and vision as their ownership has changed, and they don't have the same values as they once did. I was part of that personally several times during my career and one time it caused me to leave the company I was working for.
One other thing I've observed recently that relates to something we learned in our book this week is that what has been the truth may change in how it is viewed as more information comes out. For example, Chick-fil-A has been recently receiving some press about a position they have long held. Their position isn't new but it was applied to a situation that is polarizing, and the result had people who had been fans of Chick-fil-A suddenly turning against them as a company to do business with.
Another example is when someone who has been a credible source for a long time does something that causes me to doubt their credibility moving forward. One example of this is Mitch Albom. I had trusted him for many years, but he wrote an article as though the interviewees were at an event but they didn't end up going to the event (Joyner, 2005). He lost credibility in my eyes. He didn't have to do what he did which makes it harder for me to want to allow him to earn back my trust.
In the end, I think I am going to participate in what the authors of Blur:How to Know What's True in the Age of Information Overload (Kovach & Rosenstiel, 2010) call The Journalism of Aggregation (pg. 52) and look at multiple sources of information, using different models of journalism, and aggregate multiple types of content.
I think your skepticism is good and based on your posts you already are good at practicing "the way of skeptical knowing". I look forward to getting where you are!
Thanks for your comments.
References
Joyner, J. (2005, April 11). The mitch albom scandal: Much ado about nothing. Retrieved from http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/the_mitch_albom_scandal/
Kovach, B., & Rosenstiel, T. (2010). Blur: How to know what’s true in the age of information overload. New York City, New York: Bloomsbury.