For example, according to The Onion, Sierra Leone has the safest internet in the world. The Onion has a reputation for being an unreliable source. However, if one didn't know that, other signs could lead them to this conclusion. First off, the "article" is only one sentence, stating:
"A survey of computer viruses and malware attacks found Sierra Leone was the safest place in the world to surf the web. What do you think?"
The lack of further statistics leads one to question the claim being stated. Secondly, below the "article" are 3 different people and quotes from each of the 3 people. However, the quotes don't even relate to the article. Both the lack of statistics and users opinions make one further doubt the credibility of the claim.
Not only did this article raise suspicions but other articles on The Onion's website did the same. One article entitled "Neighbor's Wi-Fi Password Must Be Something Good". Usually, articles about someone trying to hack into a neighbor's internet signal isn't published on credible news sources because it is thought to be illegal and unethical. To be seen as more credible, the article could have discussed the frequency of how common passwords are being increasingly used for online accounts since people have more accounts than ever before. This would involve more statistics and data rather than just describing the actions of someone's neighbor.
For a more credible source, one could look towards news articles on sites such as CNN. The peer-review process and the good reputation of being a credible and unbiased source make CNN an example of good information. For example, a recent article published names Chattanooga, Tennessee as having the fastest internet. The rate of speed, quotes from the mayor, and pricing quotes for the internet services are included in this article.
Sites such as CNN.com are reliable because they provide the objective story with no biasing because it presents facts and opinions of both sides of the issue. This semester I am enrolled in another journalism class, Media Literacy. Media literacy is "the ability to sift through and analyze messages that inform, entertain and sell to us daily". The ability to sift through information is difficult today when the truth and lies intertwine together in media. Last class we discussed convergence media where you combine information from different technological sources. For example, when my friend got a text that Michael Jackson had died a year and a half ago, I had to turn the TV to CNN to see if it were true. I think that today, people have to get information from many difference sources to be sure they have the correct information.
I think this was a good start at providing evidence of good and "bad" sites and the reasons why they are. The Onion example, in particular, raises the notion of how those who are not familiar with it may or may not be duped in thinking something is true when in fact it is not. The post weakens somewhat, however, when you make the transition to CNN. Other than your own opinion and the general conclusion that CNN is "unbiased" (which many who post comments on the site strongly disagree), I didn't see support for how one can conclude that a site is credible, especially if that site IS credible but is not as well known as CNN.
ReplyDelete