The first step in my process to find factual science articles is to search reliable news outlets. This week I found an interesting article about studies conducted on ancient horse DNA through the New York Times' website.
I immediately believed the information that I was given because it was from a site that I feel has enough credibility to deserve my trust. From there, I researched the author to see why he should be considered an expert. As Kovach states in 'Blur,' "This implies not only knowing the sources and their supposed expertise but also the basis of their knowledge about a particular case. Credentials alone are insufficient" (2012, pg. 78).
The first step was to just click on the author's name, which served as a link to other stories that he had written. There I found a list of other scientific articles about topics similar to the DNA research presented in the story I had just read. While it was clear that he had been published before, I wanted some more details on his education and background. The next step was to simply search his name online, which brought me to a short bio explaining his scientific research past and multiple books of his that had been published.
Based on his credentials, as well as his education and past career experience, I determined that the author was a credible source for information. I also noticed that the article had appeared in a printed copy of the Times a few days earlier, which made me believe it even more.
Why is it that I felt more inclined to believe the article after realizing that it had appeared in print? I think it's due to how our culture views the different sources. We see online communication as an open platform where anyone can share ideas and call them facts; whereas print journalism still has that air of holding themselves to a higher standard of truth and journalistic ethics.
Having the ability to share any and all information through online sources can be a good thing! It can open lines of communication, expose people to ideas that they otherwise would have never thought of and it can bridge geographical gaps between individuals all around the world. But it also makes anyone a 'journalist.' This means that as an audience we need to be careful with what sources we trust and which we simply view as entertainment. Looking at the article I read from the New York Times, I trust their information because they are also a prominent form of print media and all of the sources had both the credentials and background to call themselves experts in the field. Checking for these aspects has become a necessity, and as long as audiences are aware of these requirements they will be able to discern true stories from opinion pieces.
Kovach, B. and Rosenstiel, T. (2010). Blur: How to know what's true in the age of information overload. New York, NY: Bloomsbury.
Hi Lexie,
ReplyDeleteYou picked a great article based on your interests. I also like how you summarized your thoughts in the last paragraph and gave examples of the pros and cons of being able to share information through online sources.
Your post brought something to my mind. I’ve been reading the Discussion Board posts and blog posts and we all talk about being careful about trusting sources. You mentioned you are a self-proclaimed ‘nerd’. First of all, I think that’s pretty cool, but secondly, it gives you a frame of reference for this story that I, for example, don’t have.
It occurred to me that our background and experience might also impact whether we think a source is credible or not, and an article is, as you say, either a true or opinion piece. Thinking about this story, do you think your background and experience helped you discern whether you think the story and the sources are credible? Do you think having expertise in an area is a reason not to check all the sources if the story sounds accurate?
Sue
Sue,
ReplyDeleteWhat a great point! I hadn't really thought about how our own preexisting knowledge and background affects how we view sources, but I would say they definitely influence how we regard information.
I think that if you already know what to look for when researching an author (like education or previous publications) your search will be much faster. Also, if you are already educated in an area you can make a quicker judgment on if you think the information presented is factual. That being said, I think it is still a good idea to check all of the sources, but having previous knowledge in a field might make your search easier.
Thanks for your thoughts!
Lexie
Lexi,
ReplyDeleteI, too, like reading about weird science, but dislike when I come across articles that claim that a new breed of micro cats that are so small they will never grow bigger than your hand has been discovered and right beside the article is a Photoshopped image (and not a particularly well done one). I have had several classes learning Photoshop and while I can say that I cannot detect all Photoshopped images I can easily pick out ones that are poorly done.
Because the article is accompanied with a bogus photo I automatically disregard it as a valid source.
Lexie, Nice job! I think your point about trusting it more because there was a print version is interesting and may point to a bias we have towards print. I also think that the print version being a few days older would have given people a chance to read and correct if necessary. I find with the NYT that the online version will often included corrections.
ReplyDelete