The first thing that I noticed is that the site is a commercial site, a newspaper, which means it has to make profit and not everything written should be considered true.
The second thing that grabbed my attention is that the article is written under "Gay Voices" which states that this piece is an opinion about issues related to gay people. This clearly shows that the article might not be completely factual.
To further clarify if the source is reliable or not, I decided to research the author: Mollie Reilly. She has a BA in Political Science, and English from Colgate University and she graduated magna cum laude. She has also held many posts before becoming the Deputy Politics Editor at The Huffington Post. She used to be an Assistant Editor at Washingtonian Magazine, a Politics Intern and so on. This shows that she has worked her way up the career ladder.
Moving on, I decided to review some of the other articles she has written; most of her articles are under the political section and she has a few under "Gay Voices".
Some of Mollie's sources include:
- The Wall Street Journal's Law Blog: even though I felt the language is harsh in the article but it provides the compliant filed, which adds to the credibility of the article.
- Los Angeles Times: a commercial newspaper but the story is compatible with the first source.
- adfmedia.org (In The Supreme Court of the United States): an organization site; this source is a research that enlightens the reader about some of the laws of the U.S.
- The Sacramento Bee: another commercial site; but once again the facts mentioned match.
- The Huffington Post: 2 articles from the Politics section of the Huffington Post are cited as well.
After all the information provided, I think the story is accurate since multiple sources are provided and the story checks out.
The only other thing that I would love to know is Mollie's sexual orientation, just out of curiosity.
Hi Ani,
ReplyDeleteIt''s interesting to see the variety of news articles researched in this week's posts. I think that going through this process of reviewing and validating sources is very helpful and will make us better consumers of information.
You made a very thorough review of the reporter's credentials which I think is important with sites like Huffington Post which aren't affliated with newspapers or broadcast news sites. Also interesting is the way the Huffington Post categorized the story under Gay Voices when it could have appeared under Supreme Court news or U.S. news. It does look like they are appealing to readers interested in gay issues. Just curious to know if you checked Time the New York Times to see if they had a different slant on the story?
Thanks for sharing your blog!
Susan EM
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAni,
ReplyDeleteDo you think because this was an opinion article that it makes the piece less credible than a normal news piece? Or do you think because it doesn't try to hide the fact that it's an opinion column makes the piece more credible? Just wondering what your thoughts are. Nice post!
-Sam
I think it makes the post more credible because it does not mislead the readers.
ReplyDeleteThanks for your thoughts Susan and Samantha =)
Hi Ani,
ReplyDeleteWhile I agree articles published on sites or sub-sites indicating it is an interest group should be viewed with skepticism, I think we should also employ the same skepticism when it applies to interest groups that are contrary to our own beliefs. In fact, shouldn't we employ more skepticism? Are we likely to believe information from interest-group sites that align closely with our own beliefs?
Hi Ani,
ReplyDeleteI don't think that the fact the article was on the "Gay Voices" page of the HuffPo means it is an opinion piece. The HuffPo divides its content into interest group heading. Gay, Black, Latino, Women etc. are all given sections. Some of the material under each heading is straight news that effects that group. Some is editorial. Good analysis.