Ciao!: (The role of) media

(The role of) media

02.02.2005

My friend Simon wrote a really good critical evaluation of Vice Magazine. Certainly worth thinking about.

Also, I was discussing the role of blogs & media this week in 105, as well as a discussion today on how to evaluate sources of evidence. And I thought I'd make a list of why blogs — as a media — have advantages on this over traditional print & TV media:

Blogs make corrections transparent & immediate. Unlike newspapers, blogs can be retroactively corrected. Sure, newspapers can print corrections/retractions. But these appear in another edition, not in the earlier print edition. So archived editions of newspapers will retain the error(s) for posterity. Imagine the possible multiplication of this error. Imagine a news story from 1965 that was later retracted two days later. But later history books, journal articles, etc. reference only the original article, unaware a correction/retraction was ever printed. Ditto for TV.
Blogs directly reference sources. Unlike newspapers or TV, which only mention sources (even online), blogs link to source's original reference or the website. You can write about a survey, and link to the polling organization's website. You can write about an interview, and link to the entire transcript. You can cite expert testimony, and link to the expert's curriculum vita, list of publications, or other information online that let's us know more about the expert.
Blogs are dynamic. Many people have pointed out this one: Unlike newspapers or TV, blogs aren't a one-way coversation. You can engage in a broader discussion w/ the author or other audience members. Authors can also link to the articles they're debating, letting readers decide for themselves whether the original is being fairly represented or not. This part of the process is more participatory than any mass information media yet invented.
Blogs have fact-checking advantages. Although no one is an expert on everything (then again, neither are journalists), the internet allows bloggers to quickly search for advice or other resources to help flesh out a story. Reader comments and other blogs help ensure that stories are accurate. The blogosphere is more vicious in terms of fact-checking than other media; incorrect information turns into a feeding frenzy.

There are other advantages, but these seem to me the most important.

-----
UPDATE: I've decided to cross-post this list of ways to evaluate sources of information, since it's applicable to newspapers, magazines, television, radio, blogs:

Sources for Evidence

Is the source referenced? Any reporter should tell his/her readers where the evidence comes from.
Is the source referenced by other people? Although it won't tell you much about the validity of specific sources, knowing that it's widely accepted can help (versus, for example, a claim by some scholar that is not widely accepted by his/her colleagues).
Who else uses the source? If the data or figures are widely used (especially if by both sides of a debate), they are probably viewed as credible by many different people. If the data or figures are themselves a matter of debate, you should approach with caution.
Does the source present its findings with transparency? A good source will tell you the methods of their data collection, and may even tell you about some potential limitations (being self-critical) of their data.
Are multiple sources saying the same thing? Somewhat different from the above, you can look to see if several different, unrelated polling groups or think tanks came up with similar results in their surveys or studies. For example, if three different drug testing labs came up with the same results about a new medicine, the results are probably pretty convincing.
Finally, you can look at the historical credibility of the source. Is the source known for being credible? Has the source been wrong in the past? How wrong?

Surveys/Polls

Is the sample representative of the population? A good survey should include a good cross section of the population under study (if you're only studying women, it should still include differences by age, geography, race, religion, income, etc.).
Is the sample random? The best way to to guarantee a representative sample is to make a random sample.
What is the sample size? If a poll is referenced, it should tell us something about sample size. A good, random sample of around 1,200 is usually fairly accurate. Bigger is better, if you're looking at more & more variables.
What were the questions? A good survey should have clearly worded, and unbiased questions. If the report can, it should mention the exact question used, and the possible answers available to respondents.
What was the question order? Often, surveys include more than one question. What other questions where asked is important. What order they are asked in can significantly influence participant responses.
Is the margin of error reported? All surveys and polls have a statistical margin of error. Is it 95%? Or 97%? How accurate do you want? If a poll says candidate A will win over B by 51% to 48%, but the margin of error is +/-3%, that is not useful to us (it could be 54% to 45% or 48% to 51% the other way).
What date was the poll taken? Opinions can quickly change, it's important to know when a poll was taken. Because perhaps opinion might change one way or another based on events that happened after the poll.
Is the poll widely used or accepted? As with any evidence, if the polling organization is widely respected and used, it's a good indication that maybe you can trust this poll.

Keep in mind that none of these things can tell you beyond a shadow of doubt whether the evidence is true or false. But it can give you a good idea of whether you should trust it or not.

Posted by Miguel at 06:29 PM

Comments

On point #4.
Personally, i don't know why i've never gotten around this, but i've never considered the internet as a trustworthy source of information. Any schmoe (myself included) with an opinion and a modem can post whatever info they please - research or no...
Consequently, i haven't been as keen to give the blogosphere as much credit as the media has recently. But what i DO sense from them is quite simply, FEAR. That in itself makes blogs more credible in my mind.

Posted by: Scott at February 3, 2005 02:58 AM

Here are a couple of problems I see about blogs:
First, that most bloggers are not profesionals, and a such, they (we) do not adhere to a certain standard. Second, while the sources are directly linked, they might not be the most credible or they comprise mainly of "journalistic" sources. Finally, blogs are mainly about opinions and not necesarily about facts.

While I agree blogs have the potential to become a media force to reckon with, I also agree with those who propose to lay certain basic ethical as well as normative standards. For example, all sources have to be cited.

Posted by: MB at February 3, 2005 04:39 AM

I don't think bloggers are any more prone to bias than journalists. But we do wear our biases on our sleeves more, which I think is useful. I can usually tell what side of the fence a blogger sits on very quickly, and use that to read their stuff w/ a grain of salt. But the fact that they can link directly to sources also means I can judge not just the opinion, but the sources themselves. Using some critical thinking tools, it's possible to determine what sources are/aren't credible.

Also, the blogosphere has a weird ecosystem to it. People want readership, but to do that, they have to stand out in the crowd. That means they have to be some combination of: A) skilled writer, B) relevant topics, C) informative & credible, and D) generally reliable. Blogs that offer low quality information, get few links, few readers, and lower Google ratings. The "blogosphere ecosystem" does have an inate ability to do that.

Posted by: Miguel at February 3, 2005 10:21 AM