Information Literacy
(Information has been taken and modified from https://www.educationworld.com/ultimate-guide-teaching-source-credibility)
Start by clicking here to: Test Your News Literacy Fitness
Know your gTLDs:
"'Generic Top Level Domains' are the top-level domain names of Internet addresses that identify them generically as associated with some domain class. Wha? You know the last three or so letters of a web site URL? .com? .net? That. These letters let us know a little bit about the type of source we’re looking at when we find a web site. There are a super lot of these, but some of them are more common than others" (https://www.educationworld.com/ultimate-guide-teaching-source-credibility). Here is a quick list of the most common gTLDs:
- .com (commercial): This is the most popular gTLD. Originally used for commercial purposes, this is now used for almost any web site imaginable. Anyone can have a .com. Proceed with caution and a critical eye.
- .net (network): Originally meant for network sites, this gTLD, too, is often used for many non-network-related information. Anyone can have a .net. Proceed with caution and a critical eye.
- .gov (government): These sites are restricted to government use only. This is not a public domain one can simply purchase. Often an excellent source of statistical data.
- .org (organization): This TLD was intended for organizations and non-profits. However, it has quickly been embraced by the general public. Be aware of the bias of the particular organization. Proceed with caution and a critical eye.
- .edu (education): This TLD is generally used by universities and other formal educational institutions. Many research sciences will publish through their associated university.
How Do I Know If A Source Is Reliable?
Cross Referencing and Fact Checking:
Cross referencing and fact checking can help you to determine the validity and reliability of the information you consume. In order to do this, seek out specific information found in your sources to see if they can be confirmed through other, trusted sources. Another way to do this (although it should not take the place of your own cross-referencing) is to use a fact-checker site:
Analysing Sources:
Trusting the integrity of a news source might be one thing, but trusting those being interviewed is quite another. As students are thinking about the sources relied upon by news organizations, they don’t want to simply take their word for it: check the ethos or guiding beliefs of a person, group or institution.
1. Statistics or facts from a study or a survey: These can be helpful in understanding a topic, but make sure to understand who is conducting the search, ask yourself if the study or survey has been conducted in an objective manner, or if the information has been manipulated in some way.
2. A quotation from a professional in a relevant field: People who have spent their lives studying a topic often have thoughts and even opinions that are more trusted than your own due to their wealth of experience with the issue. Is the person being quoted a reliable source? What makes this person an expert?
3. Reference to a historical event from an article or other primary source: An article that reports on something that actually happened in time, can be verified, and that event can help support a claim.
4. A quotation from a person directly impacted by the topic: People who are involved with the debate in some way or have personal experience can be helpful in supporting a claim.
5. Something just said in an article (likely by a reporter, and the reporter is not a professional in the relevant field you are researching): News reporters are surely supposed to report the facts, not take a side on an issue. But if a claim is being made without referencing credible sources, you will want to be cautious.
Fake Or Real? How To Self-Check The News And Get The Facts
A finder's guide for facts (https://www.npr.org/2016/12/11/505154631/a-finders-guide-to-facts):
First, take a moment. If you have time to scroll Facebook or watch the news, you probably have a moment to decide if a news story seems credible. Ask some quick questions:
- Is the story so outrageous you can't believe it? Maybe you shouldn't. Respect the voice inside you that says, "What?"
- Is the story so outrageous you do believe it? That's also a warning sign. Many stories play on your existing beliefs. If the story perfectly confirms your worst suspicions, look for more information.
- Does the headline match the article? Many compelling headlines don't.
- Does the article match the news story it's lifted from? Many sites rewrite other news articles to fit the political slant of their presumed audience. Look for links to original sources and click through and see what the original says.
- Are quotes in context? Look for the sentences before and after the quote that makes your blood boil. If the article fails to give them, that's a warning sign.
- Is the story set in the future? It's hard to get firsthand reporting from there. Any story that tells you what will happen should be marked down 50 percent for this reason alone.
- Does the story attack a generic enemy? Vague denunciations of "Washington" or "the media" or "Trump supporters" or "the left" should be marked down 99 percent. Good reporting doesn't make these kinds of generalizations and is specific about who is making a claim about what.
- Are you asked to rely on one killer factoid? Not a good idea. If a hacked document "proves" an implausible conspiracy, look for the context that shows what the document really means. As for photos and video, use Ronald Reagan's old slogan: trust but verify. If there's any doubt about a "stunning" video, see if more traditional sources link to it. They love video clicks as much as anyone. If they refrain, there may be good reason.
- Who is the news source, anyway? Traditional news brands may occasionally get it wrong — sometimes hugely wrong — but at least you know where to find them and hold them accountable. Less prominent news sites might carry compelling stories — but expect them to show you who they are and where they gathered information.
- Does the news source appear to employ editors? Many news organizations produce stories that are checked before publication. Others don't. It's a big deal. Hiring an editorial staff shows the publication's respect for you, and matters more than "political bias." The New York Times and the Wall Street Journal, for example, have different owners, audiences, stories, perspectives and obsessions. Both have made mistakes and omissions; but both send reporters out into the world and back them up with an editorial process that catches and corrects many errors. This means both can be informative, regardless of your politics or theirs.
- Are you told, "Trust me"? Don't. It's the post-trust era! Expect everyone to show where their facts come from, link to underlying articles, and demonstrate that they've argued honestly. Here's a way they may bolster their credibility:
- Did the writer engage with anyone who disagrees? Did they call a senator whose legislation bugs them? Did they try to grasp what the president-elect was doing, or merely repeat one of his more outrageous statements? If it's a broadcast interview, was the guest presented with genuine opposing views and challenged to answer? Those who wrestle with opposing arguments do you a service and often improve their own arguments.
These simple questions should take you a long way toward judging the value of a news story.
While applying such questions to any given story, you can also take a few more general steps:
- Broaden your palate. Make a point to check sites that do not agree with your politics. You may discover stories that are wrong — but you'll know what other people are consuming, which will sharpen your own thinking.
- Be open to the idea that some falsehoods are sincerely held. In spite of all the warnings here, some inaccurate news stories grow out of haste or misinformation rather than pure cynicism. (But they're still false.)
- If a news source consistently passes the tests in this guide, support it. Gathering reliable information isn't free. Helping to pay for it aligns the news source's interests with yours.
Visit each site and determine whether or not it is a reliable source.
Explain the reason for your determination:
The Official Website of the Republic of Molossia
Searching Efficiently:
Click on the link below for information regarding Google searches, shortcuts, and tips:
How to Get the Most Out of Google
A reporter’s job is to present a balanced story. As you read, listen to and watch the news, you may notice stories that you think are biased. To see if they really are biased, you need to determine if the story falls into at least one of the several forms in which bias occurs.
TYPES OF MEDIA BIAS:
Bias by omission – leaving one side out of an article, or a series of articles over a period of time; ignoring facts that tend to disprove liberal or conservative claims, or that support liberal or conservative beliefs; bias by omission can occur either within a story, or over the long term as a particular news outlet reports one set of events, but not another. To find instances of bias by omission, be aware of the conservative and liberal perspectives on current issues. See if both the conservative and liberal perspectives are included in stories on a particular event or policy.
Bias by selection of sources – including more sources that support one view over another. This bias can also be seen when a reporter uses such phrases as “experts believe,” “observers say,” or “most people believe.” Experts in news stories are like expert witnesses in trials. If you know whether the defense or the prosecution called a particular expert witness to the stand, you know which way the witness will testify. And when a news story only presents one side, it is obviously the side the reporter supports. (Journalists often go looking for quotes to fit their favorite argument into a news story.) To find bias by use of experts or sources, stay alert to the affiliations and political perspective of those quoted as experts or authorities in news stories. Not all stories will include experts, but in those that do, make sure about an equal number of conservatives and liberals are quoted. If a story quotes non-experts, such as those portrayed as average citizens, check to be sure that about an equal number come from both sides of the issue in question.
Bias by story selection – a pattern of highlighting news stories that coincide with the agenda of either the Left or the Right, while ignoring stories that coincide with the opposing view; printing a story or study released by a liberal or conservative group but ignoring studies on the same or similar topics released by the opposing group. To identify bias by story selection you’ll need to know the conservative and liberal sides of the issue. See how much coverage conservative issues get compared to issues on the liberal agenda, or liberals compared to conservatives. For example, if a liberal group puts out a study proving a liberal point, look at how much coverage it got compared to a conservative study issued a few days or weeks earlier, or vice versa. If charges of impropriety are leveled at two politicians of approximately equal power, one liberal and one conservative, compare the amount of coverage given to each.
Bias by placement – Story placement is a measure of how important the editor considers the story. Studies have shown that, in the case of the average newspaper reader and the average news story, most people read only the headline. Bias by placement is where on a website (or newspaper) or in an article a story or event is printed; a pattern of placing news stories so as to downplay information supportive of either conservative views or liberal views. To locate examples of bias by placement, observe where a media outlet places political stories. Or whenever you read a story, see how far into the story each viewpoint first appears. In a fair and balanced story, the reporter would quote or summarize the liberal and conservative view at about the same place in the story. If not, you’ve found bias by placement.
Bias by labeling – Bias by labeling comes in two forms. The first is the tagging of conservative politicians and groups with extreme labels while leaving liberal politicians and groups unlabeled or with more mild labels, or vice versa. The second kind of bias by labeling occurs when a reporter not only fails to identify a liberal as a liberal or a conservative as a conservative, but describes the person or group with positive labels, such as “an expert” or “independent consumer group.” In so doing, the reporter imparts an air of authority that the source does not deserve. If the “expert” is properly called a “conservative” or a “liberal” the news consumer can take that ideological slant into account when evaluating the accuracy of an assertion. When looking for bias by labeling, remember that not all labeling is biased or wrong. Bias by labeling is present when the story labels the liberal but not the conservative, or the conservative but not the liberal; when the story uses more extreme sounding labels for the conservative than the liberal (“ultra-conservative”, “far right”, but just “liberal” instead of “far left” and “ultra-liberal”) or for the liberal than the conservative (“ultra-liberal”, “far left”, but just “conservative” instead of “far right” and “ultra-conservative ; and when the story misleadingly identifies a liberal or conservative official or group as just an expert or independent watchdog organization.
Bias by spin – Bias by spin occurs when the story has only one interpretation of an event or policy, to the exclusion of the other; spin involves tone – it’s a reporter’s subjective comments about objective facts; makes one side’s ideological perspective look better than another. To check if it’s spin, observe which interpretation of an event or policy a news story matches – the liberal or conservative. Many news stories do not reflect a particular spin. Others summarize the spin put on an event by both sides. But if a story reflects one to the exclusion of the other, then you’ve found bias by spin.
Confirmation Bias (https://fs.blog/2017/05/confirmation-bias/):
Failing to interpret information in an unbiased way can lead to serious misjudgments. By understanding this, we can learn to identify it in ourselves and others. We can be cautious of data that seems to immediately support our views.
The complexity of confirmation bias arises partly from the fact that it is impossible to overcome it without an awareness of the concept. Even when shown evidence to contradict a biased view, we may still interpret it in a manner that reinforces our current perspective.
In one Stanford study, half of the participants were in favor of capital punishment, and the other half were opposed to it. Both groups read details of the same two fictional studies. Half of the participants were told that one study supported the deterrent effect of capital punishment, and the other opposed it. The other participants read the opposite information. No matter, the majority of participants stuck to their original views, pointing to the data that supported it and discarding that which did not.
Confirmation bias clouds our judgment. It gives us a skewed view of information, even when it consists only of numerical figures. Understanding this cannot fail to transform a person’s worldview — or rather, our perspective on it. Lewis Carroll stated, “we are what we believe we are,” but it seems that the world is also what we believe it to be.
Implicit Bias: