Evaluating Online Sources: Evaluate Sources, incl. the news

Critically evaluate your sources for:

     Currency

     Relevance

     Authority

     Accuracy

     Purpose

UPDATE: Evaluate with SIFT (The Four Moves) instead. See also: the homepage of this guide, Introducing SIFT, a Four Moves Acronym, a Short History of CRAAP, and The CRAAP Test and Whiteness, Emotion and Bias

ACT UP

to

Evaluate Sources

A - author. Who wrote the resource? Who are they? Background information matters.

C - currency. When was this resource written? When was it published? Does this resource fit into the currency of your topic?

T - truth. How accurate is this information? Can you verify any of the claims in other sources? Are there typos and spelling mistakes?

U - unbiased. Is the information presented to sway the audience to a particular point of view? Resources unless otherwise stated should be impartial.

P - privilege. Check the privilege of the author(s). Are they the only folks who might write or publish on this topic? Who is missing in this conversation? Critically evaluate the subject terms associated with each resource you found. How are they described? What are the inherent biases?

CAFE Advice

To be informed cultural producers of information (as opposed to being cultural consumers), we need to think critically about the resources we are using and citing in our projects. We have a social responsibility to others who might be looking to us for information. We all have a responsibility to fact-check sources before we retweet or repost so that those that follow us are reading accurate and reliable information.

Is it peer reviewed? See: peer review explained at Science Direct.

See also: the Popular vs. Scholarly page on this LibGuide.

Always think about the sources of the news you are looking at.  Sources near the top are your best bet.  Bias is not in itself a problem as long as the source uses good news practices.  

News Quality Chart by Vanessa Otero, Ad Fontes Media, © 2016-2020.
YouTube introduction to the Media Bias Chart with Vanessa Otero.

Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Three-part series looking into the future of the European Union’s (EU) disinformation policy.

FUTURE THREATS, FUTURE SOLUTIONS | #1
The EU’s Role in Fighting Disinformation: Taking Back the Initiative / James Pamment

FUTURE THREATS, FUTURE SOLUTIONS | #2
The EU’s Role in Fighting Disinformation: Crafting A Disinformation Framework / James Pamment

FUTURE THREATS, FUTURE SOLUTIONS | #3
The EU’s Role in the Fight Against Disinformation: Developing Policy Interventions for the 2020s / James Pamment

False, Misleading, Clickbait-y, and Satirical “News” Sources

1. Fake, false, or regularly misleading websites are often shared on social media, including Facebook. Some of these websites may rely on “outrage” by using distorted headlines and decontextualized or dubious information in order to generate likes, shares, and profits.

2. Some websites circulate misleading and/or potentially unreliable information, or present opinion pieces as news.

3. Other websites use hyperbolic or clickbait-y headlines and/or social media descriptions, but may otherwise circulate reliable and/or verifiable information.

4. Other sources purposefully fake with the intent of satire/comedy, which can offer important critical commentary on politics and society, but have the potential to be shared as actual/literal news, for example, The Onion.

Tips for analyzing news sources:

● Avoid websites that end in “lo” ex: Newslo. These sites take pieces of accurate information and then packaging that information with other false or misleading “facts” (sometimes for the purposes of satire or comedy).

● Watch out for websites that end in “.com.co” as they are often fake versions of real news sources

● Watch out if known/reputable news sites are not also reporting on the story. Sometimes lack of coverage is the result of corporate media bias and other factors, but there should typically be more than one source reporting on a topic or event.

● Odd domain names generally equal odd and rarely truthful news.

● Lack of author attribution may, but not always, signify that the news story is suspect and requires verification.

● Some news organizations are also letting bloggers post under the banner of particular news brands; however, many of these posts do not go through the same editing process. (This includes Forbes blogs, for example.)

● Check the “About Us” tab on websites or look up the website on Snopes or Wikipedia for more information about the source.

● Bad web design and use of ALL CAPS can also be a sign that the source you’re looking at should be verified and/or read in conjunction with other sources.

● If the story makes you REALLY ANGRY it’s probably a good idea to keep reading about the topic via other sources to make sure the story you read wasn’t purposefully trying to make you angry (with potentially misleading or false information) in order to generate shares and ad revenue.

● If the website you’re reading encourages you to DOX individuals (to reveal the private information of others, i.e., cell phone number, email address, etc.), it’s unlikely to be a legitimate source of news.

● It’s always best to read multiple sources of information to get a variety of viewpoints and media frames. Some sources, such as The Daily Kos, The Huffington Post, and Fox News, vacillate between providing important, legitimate, problematic, and/or hyperbolic news coverage, requiring readers and viewers to verify and contextualize information with other sources.

Adapted from: 

Melissa Zimdars, Assistant Professor of Communication, Department of Communication and Media, Merrimack College, North Andover, MA

Terminology to add to the list, includes:
byline - a line giving the name of the writer of an article in a newspaper or magazine.