Journalistic Sources
Journalists make use of different kinds of sources in different kinds of ways. When looking at the plethora of sources that are used by journalists to make their own news item, we distinguished three categories that we think cover most of the sources used by journalists.
First we distinguish the original sources, these sources are as the name implies: sources that originate from the original source. Or otherwise said it is about the information that journalists obtain directly from organisations and other actors themselves without any intervention by another actor. Within this category we find sources such as press releases, interviews, frequently answered questions (faq's) or questions and answers (q&a's), whistle blowers and academic articles.
Then we distinguish second-hand sources, which are those sources which most of the time act as an intermediary in relaying information. These sources are a bit more ambiguous as they can at times also act as original sources but most of the time consist of rewritten information obtained from other sources. In this category we find sources such as newspaper articles, blogposts, television and Wikipedia articles. It can also be argued that academic articles also belong to this category as they are sometimes a presentation of multiple other source. However we have chosen to categorize these under original sources because they oftentimes include new information gathered through questionnaires and experiments that would not have otherwise been come to light if the sources were looked at individually.
Lastly, we distinguished hybrid sources. These sources are also ambiguous but frequently present both new original information as well as a recollection of information distributed by other sources. In this way these sources can be even harder to categorize within the previous two categories, demanding this third category to exist. Within this category we may find sources such as twitter (often used as a way to relay known information, but even as often used as a way to write news articles about) and platforms such as Reddit (where other sources are frequently gathered, but new information is also presented through the use of Reddit's Ask me Anything).
Judging credibility
During our presentation we also briefly discussed how we (and journalists) judge our sources on their credibility. Hilligoss & Rieh distinguish three distinct levels of credibility judgement within their unified framework of credibility: the construct level, the heuristic level and the interaction level. At the construct level, we judge credibility by defining its meaning: is something credible when it is truthful, believable, trustworthy, objective, or reliable? Then we define credibility based on the heuristics we have learned throughout our lives: rules of the thumb regarding ideas about the media presenting the information, who endorsed the information and how the information is presented. Lastly, we base our judgements of credibility on the interaction level: judgements based on the content and how the source conveys the actual information within the text or message.
All of these levels are however also influenced by the context and frames in which they are presented. Here we distinguished between our social, relational and dynamic frames surrounding the information seeker that influence and dictate the boundaries of credibility judgements.
Case Studies
Fox News 'No-go Zones'
Have you heard of the areas in the UK and France that are run by jihadists and which non-Muslims cannot enter? No? Well, they don't exist. But that didn't stop Fox News from reporting about them for a week after a self-proclaimed expert on terror had told about areas in Paris and Birmingham that are ruled by muslim religious war.
Watch the video here:
Fox News later apologized later saying: "To be clear, there is no formal designation of these zones in either country and no credible information to support the assertion there are specific areas in these countries that exclude individuals based solely on their religion."
A French TV show picked up on the issue and went out to investigated these no-go zones
Watch the video here:
Google uploaded this video as a job post, including the tempting description: "'We're hiring autocompleters for Google Search! Are you passionate about helping people? Are you intuitive? Do you often feel like you know what your friends and family are thinking and can you finish their thoughts before they can? Are you an incredibly fast Google searcher? Like, so fast that you can do 20 searches before your mom does 1?". This might seem like a dream job, but obviously it is not true. Google uploaded the video in March, acting as an April' fools marketing strategy. By showing the video, we wanted to show that the source is not the only thing that counts as a 'credibility-predictor'. As Google is regarded as a credible source, people might have the tendency to immediately agree upon all of their releases. However, people must remain critical of messages from any source.
Turtle swim-suits
In addition to the Google video, a story can be very incredible. We stumbled upon a story on turtles that were put on mini swim-suits. Although this might seem highly incredible, the story is actually true. Obviously, if you read the complete story, you might believe the piece, as it comes with a source (the University of Queensland, Australia; where the actual study was conducted). Therefore, to support the statement above, remain critical to any item you read or hear. The source might be credible, the story might be incredible, but you are always left to judge whether you think the story is true or false.
- André, Andrei, Luisa, and Marc
No comments:
Post a Comment