Assessing reliability of data

One part of your blog is your analysis of the reliability of pieces of data.  You are NOT saying “This article is reliable” or “This article is not reliable.”  Instead, you are identifying which data presented is likely to be an objective fact, and which data presented may actually be

subjective opinion 

speculative (about the present and past)

predictive (about the future)

based on hearsay evidence

an interpretation of facts (because there’s not enough information)

Your blog should have a paragraph which explicitly addresses reliability of pieces of data.  It should contain statements identifying data with the terms above.  For example, you may write the following sentence: "The author presents quotes from the Prime Minister's speech in their original context."  Then you have to say how you know this, and an easy way to do this is by linking your statement to other newspapers' version of the Prime Minister's speech.  Another example may be, "The author presents the events that occurred, and then follows these with her interpretation that these were motivated by a desire to appeal for election votes." 

.................................

How do you to start working on this aspect of the blog assignment?   

1. Start by determining the author's (or authors') qualifications.  Many of the online newspapers have a tab "about" or another way of learning about the authors.  You can also Google the names of the authors or press agencies.  If the author is writing about military matters in this article, and the author has frequently, in the past, written about military matters, then it is a fair conclusion that the author has some expertise in this area. Nevertheless, the author's expertise is not reason enough to conclude that a specific piece of information is a fact.  

2. See if you can find the source for the reported data - is the source identified, appropriate, and authoritative?  In general, hearsay evidence is not as good as first-hand evidence or documentation.

          

3. When the topic is public opinion, how good/thorough/broad is the opinion poll or whatever method is used for assessing public opinion? When people's words are being reported, are they being paraphrased or actually quoted?  Is the author relying too much on public opinion in order to establish a fact?  Are relevant authorities/people being cited?

          

4. Examine whether there are sufficient details, indicating that the writer paid attention to the matter and you, the reader, are receiving specific information and not simply generalizations.  If so, say so.  If not, say so. 

5. Look at the "voices" whose opinion or statements are included in this article.  Are all the voices supportive of the author's presented data?  Are some of the voices critical of the author's presented data?  If so, say so.  If not, say so.  

6. Look for objectivity in a matter of disputes or tensions.  Beware of phony balance. “There are two sides to every story” is often just a narrative strategy, not a reflection of reality.  In real life, there are often five or six sides to every story, and some of the sides are not equal to the other sides.

7. Does the article have a "hook"?  A writer’s “hook” is a theme to draw people to the story (for example, "a good but underprivileged person prevails in the end," or "the government can do good things").  The hook should not detract from the information given – the problem here is that this style can be more important than actually giving sufficient and relevant information. Sometimes having a strong "hook" is a red flag that the reporter has looked only for information that supports that theme.

8. Finally, one IMPORTANT way to help you assess reliability of specific data is to review read multiple news sources for information about the same story.  I strongly recommend that you do this.  When you check out the same event in a different newspaper or online source, you MUST name and LINK that source.