I remember growing up with choices and consequences. I could choose one thing or another, and the consequences of each choice were explained to me to help me make my choice; I didn’t grow up in a world of unrestricted. This process has stayed with me throughout my life and I thought about it as I read the article Criteria to Evaluate the Credibility of WWW Resources (Montecino, n.d.). The article explains that “Anyone, in theory, can publish on the Web; therefore, it is imperative for users of the Web to develop a critical eye to evaluate the credibility of Internet information" (para. 1). With this as its foundation, the article provides guidelines for analyzing the reliability of different types of Web resources, reviews different types of Web resources we can choose to use, and gives us the potential consequences of using each type of Web resource.
As I have been studying these past few months, another common phrase has come to my mind frequently that is also relevant to our assignment this week. “Assume nothing; we know what assuming does”. I have begun to realize that I have been making assumptions about the content of websites known for their reputation for credibility in the past. Instead of validating the credibility of each article and its author(s), I have been assuming their content is credible.
I considered both of these as I read the New York Times online article How the U.S. Uses Technology to Mine More Data More Quickly (Risen & Lichtblau, 2013). Before reviewing the credibility of the sources referenced in the article, I searched to see what The New York Times’ commitment to credibility and sources is. I found their Ethical Journalism handbook which, if it is being applied to their work, is very clear about ethics, sources and credibility. I went next to the Corporate Governance webpage of their company website, The New York Times Company, and again found it clear and specific about ethics, sources and credibility. Based on these two sets of documents, I decided their foundation as an organization was firm.
The article referenced above about the credibility of Web resources guides me to have caution about the sources of information, their authority and viewpoint. “Like any other source, the authority of the author helps determine the value of the information (para. 17).” I clicked on the hyperlinks of the two authors of the New York Times article, James Risen and Eric Lichtblau, for more information about them. Both gentlemen have an impressive resumé of other articles. In addition, James Risen is a two-time Pulitzer Prize winner. His first Pulitzer came in 2002 for Explanatory Reporting. His second Pulitzer came in 2006 and was won with Eric Lichtblau for National Reporting. A brief excerpt of the explanation for their award contains another confirmation to their commitment to credibility in using sources: “Awarded to James Risen and Eric Lichtblau of The New York Times for their carefully sourced stories …" (The 2006 pulitzer prize winners, 2006). Their body of work and the information about them gave me reassurance that they are solid journalists. I haven’t read the article yet, and already I have been provided reassuring information for four of the nine guidelines presented in Criteria to Evaluate the Credibility of WWW Resources (Montecino, n.d.).
The research I did in to the background of the two authors of this article shows me they have a long-standing interest and consistent experience in reporting the types of information presented in this article. I am not sure where the line between a persons' passion for the information they are presenting and any biases they may have about the information get crossed, but as I read the article, my personal feeling was they were trying to present information in a way that allowed me to form my own opinion. They used a number of validated facts and credible sources of additional information that they shared with the readers which made me feel like they were practicing the way of skeptical knowing (Kovach & Rosenstiel, 2010, p. 31), using the Journalism of Verification (p. 36) model of content.
The authors wrote the article using the Inverted Pyramid Structure of mass media writing (Purdue OWL, 2013), so I knew after the first paragraph what the article was going to be about and that it would contain information about several topics that are currently very polarizing. As they expanded the information in their article, some of the topics they discussed included big data, the National Security Agency, privacy of information, secret government programs, and the monitoring of Internet activity. In the context of the impact of unrestricted web publishing, any of these topics could generate a lot of interest, opinion and fear. In fact, this article alone has already generated 506 comments since its publication on June 8, 2013. Supporting the credibility of their report, the authors cited the reporters who contributed to the development of this article and they used eight hyperlinks to companies, people and information that further supported the content in their article. Each link was active and the people they quoted in the article also had impressive credentials, which, for me, further validated the credibility of their content.
As I’ve been studying communications these past few months, several themes have repeated themselves. One of them is my growing responsibility in making sure what I am reading is accurate. Through the hyperlinks to additional information provided in this New York Times article, the volume of facts presented, and the content of the article itself, the authors made me a better consumer, a more educated consumer, of the information they were presenting. Had they not done this, I could have been an example of what I think is the worst part of unrestricted web publishing. I could have taken information, perhaps from multiple sources, posted my opinions as facts for people to search for and use inaccurately, and spread fear and false information. Instead, I can use what I am learning to become what I think is the best about unrestricted web publishing, providing content correctly and, like the authors of this article, creating a credible body of work and respected reputation.
References
Montecino, V. (n.d.). Criteria to evaluate the credibility of WWW resources. Retrieved July 01, 2013, from George Mason University: http://mason.gmu.edu/~montecin/web-eval-sites.htm
Purdue OWL. (2013). The Inverted Pyramid Structure. Retrieved June 24, 2013, from Purdue Owl: http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/735/04/
Risen, J., & Lichtblau, E. (2013, June 08). How the U.S. uses technology to mine more data more quickly. Retrieved July 01, 2013, from The New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/09/us/revelations-give-look-at-spy-agencys-wider-reach.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&
The 2006 pulitzer prize winners. (2006). Retrieved July 03, 2013, from Pulitzer: http://www.pulitzer.org/citation/2006-National-Reporting
Really good post! But your process could be exhausting if we had to follow it for everything.
ReplyDelete