Look out for Unreliable Websites...
My Spin on Things
Scullion, Colby. My Spin On Things. Colby Scullion, 04 10 2012. Web. Web. 9 Oct. 2012. <http://myspinonthings.com/>.
My Spin On Things is an opinion-based political blog that claims to analyze politics from “a 360 degree view.” The blog is clearly written from a more liberal standpoint. One article is entitled “The Republican Party’s Real Problem.” If this was a truly “360” blog, there would be articles examining both major political parties, and some of the other ones as well. Another article, “The Truth About the Federal Debt” could also be misleading because Scullion is not really delivering the truth, he is presenting his opinion as what he believes to be truth, with a liberal spin.
In the description of the blog, it is promised that the blog consists of “accurate news and well-informed articles” but there is no distinction made as to which blog posts are opinions and which is “news.” To a novice user, distinguishing might be difficult and they could misconstrue one for the other. When it comes to politics, finding information on the Web can be difficult, because so much in politics is based on a person’s belief system. However, that leaves no reason for people to make blogs that claim to have news when in actuality the whole blog is their opinion. Novice Web users may have a hard time distinguishing someone else’s belief system from fact, which in turn skews their voting.
Blog4Presidents
D., Mike. "2012 Presidential Campaign." 2012 Presidential Campaign Blog. N.p., 08 Oct. 2012. Web. 08 Oct. 2012. <http://blog.4president.us/>.
This source is a blog containing up-to-date information on the current presidential election. The very first sign that this site is not the most reliable source is the fact that the publisher of the webpage is a single person, who is only identified by the first name. The writer provides no information on his credentials or his connection to the topic. At first glance, the site is useful in providing current information about the presidential candidates’ upcoming events. Another point that makes this website worrisome is that since the contributor is a single person, the information reported is extremely biased. In this case, the writer is clearly a Republican.
Unlike other sources in our bibliography, this blog provides a very narrow point of view on our topic and does not give much information on previous elections. I believe the site would be more reliable if the author was clearly introduced and information was presented without personal opinion. Despite being a possible source for information regarding what the candidates are doing within the media, the other sources we provide in our bibliography would be more reliable due to their author’s credentials and scholarly properties.
D., Mike. "2012 Presidential Campaign." 2012 Presidential Campaign Blog. N.p., 08 Oct. 2012. Web. 08 Oct. 2012. <http://blog.4president.us/>.
This source is a blog containing up-to-date information on the current presidential election. The very first sign that this site is not the most reliable source is the fact that the publisher of the webpage is a single person, who is only identified by the first name. The writer provides no information on his credentials or his connection to the topic. At first glance, the site is useful in providing current information about the presidential candidates’ upcoming events. Another point that makes this website worrisome is that since the contributor is a single person, the information reported is extremely biased. In this case, the writer is clearly a Republican.
Unlike other sources in our bibliography, this blog provides a very narrow point of view on our topic and does not give much information on previous elections. I believe the site would be more reliable if the author was clearly introduced and information was presented without personal opinion. Despite being a possible source for information regarding what the candidates are doing within the media, the other sources we provide in our bibliography would be more reliable due to their author’s credentials and scholarly properties.
Christian Coalition of America
Welcome to the Christian Coalition of America. Robert Combs. 2012. Christian Coalition of America. 9 Oct., 2012. <http://www.cc.org
/2012_legislative_agenda>
I believe that the “Welcome to the Christian Coalition of America” website is an unreliable source for our research project. The website is created and funded by the largest grassroots political organization in America. The group was created in 1989 for faith based Americans who wanted to be involved in actively participating and influencing politics. The organization has clear political motives that are shown throughout the entire website.
This website is a perfect example of how media can significantly effect the outcome of an election, because all of the information provided is very bias, and sometimes inaccurate. The website opens by explaining the importance of providing information to the public, so that the public can make an informed decision. While I agree that an educated public is very important in ensuring a responsible vote, I go on to find that all the information on this website is bias in favor of the group’s religious views. The website also uses extreme language such as “pro-abortion” rather than “pro-choice” to exaggerate their point.
This website does not present a balanced amount of information in order to ensure that the people reading it have the opportunity to compare information and make an educated decision for themselves. Instead the website presents itself as an unbiased, educational forum, but really just presents bias information that enhances their own ideas and views. For example, the website encourages the importance of appointing Supreme Court Justices that strictly interpret the Constitution that was originally written by the Founding Fathers, but then goes on to argue the importance of a Christian faith concerning many political policies. The original constitution includes both the Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause in the First Amendment, and the clear distinction between church and state. It is clear to me that this website presents information that is not only bias but contradicts itself in many aspects. The information provided in this website is not only bias, but also unreliable in presenting accurate information that depicts both candidates and the election itself.
Welcome to the Christian Coalition of America. Robert Combs. 2012. Christian Coalition of America. 9 Oct., 2012. <http://www.cc.org
/2012_legislative_agenda>
I believe that the “Welcome to the Christian Coalition of America” website is an unreliable source for our research project. The website is created and funded by the largest grassroots political organization in America. The group was created in 1989 for faith based Americans who wanted to be involved in actively participating and influencing politics. The organization has clear political motives that are shown throughout the entire website.
This website is a perfect example of how media can significantly effect the outcome of an election, because all of the information provided is very bias, and sometimes inaccurate. The website opens by explaining the importance of providing information to the public, so that the public can make an informed decision. While I agree that an educated public is very important in ensuring a responsible vote, I go on to find that all the information on this website is bias in favor of the group’s religious views. The website also uses extreme language such as “pro-abortion” rather than “pro-choice” to exaggerate their point.
This website does not present a balanced amount of information in order to ensure that the people reading it have the opportunity to compare information and make an educated decision for themselves. Instead the website presents itself as an unbiased, educational forum, but really just presents bias information that enhances their own ideas and views. For example, the website encourages the importance of appointing Supreme Court Justices that strictly interpret the Constitution that was originally written by the Founding Fathers, but then goes on to argue the importance of a Christian faith concerning many political policies. The original constitution includes both the Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause in the First Amendment, and the clear distinction between church and state. It is clear to me that this website presents information that is not only bias but contradicts itself in many aspects. The information provided in this website is not only bias, but also unreliable in presenting accurate information that depicts both candidates and the election itself.
U.S. News Opinions
Cary, Mary Kate. "5 Ways New Media Are Changing Politics." US News. U.S.News & World Report, n.d. Web. 09 Oct. 2012. http://www.usnews.com
/opinion/slideshows/5-ways-new-media-are-changing-politics/6.
The title” 5 Ways New Media Are Changing Politics” has a big limitation; the author just found 5 ways to summarize that politics are changed by media. Besides, let’s figure out which sub topics---5 ways:”1. News You Can Choose” ”Share This” “Like It” ”Connect With Others”” Donate It”. In total, the topics are a little bit rough, such as “like it” , it is one function of Facebook. And” New You Can Choose” is point out the media which people would like to choose influent reporters to write. These two sub topics are uncorrelated form qualities. That makes me feel confused when I first read this information with little conviction. Finally, author emphasizes “We’ve gained hundreds of cable TV channels and satellite radio stations, millions of bloggers, and literally billions of Web pages. The media today are more diffuse and chaotic than ever.” In this article, author is trying to mention that which 5 way of media are changing politics. Whereas, author also emphasize president media is more diffuse and chaotic than before. As readers like me, author's inconsistent key points derange us all. In these respect which I mentioned, I think this article is lack of value for our team’s topic.
Cary, Mary Kate. "5 Ways New Media Are Changing Politics." US News. U.S.News & World Report, n.d. Web. 09 Oct. 2012. http://www.usnews.com
/opinion/slideshows/5-ways-new-media-are-changing-politics/6.
The title” 5 Ways New Media Are Changing Politics” has a big limitation; the author just found 5 ways to summarize that politics are changed by media. Besides, let’s figure out which sub topics---5 ways:”1. News You Can Choose” ”Share This” “Like It” ”Connect With Others”” Donate It”. In total, the topics are a little bit rough, such as “like it” , it is one function of Facebook. And” New You Can Choose” is point out the media which people would like to choose influent reporters to write. These two sub topics are uncorrelated form qualities. That makes me feel confused when I first read this information with little conviction. Finally, author emphasizes “We’ve gained hundreds of cable TV channels and satellite radio stations, millions of bloggers, and literally billions of Web pages. The media today are more diffuse and chaotic than ever.” In this article, author is trying to mention that which 5 way of media are changing politics. Whereas, author also emphasize president media is more diffuse and chaotic than before. As readers like me, author's inconsistent key points derange us all. In these respect which I mentioned, I think this article is lack of value for our team’s topic.
Californiality
Lorier, Mark. "Liberal Media Bias Explained." Californiality. LexisNexis, 29 Sept. 2012. Web. 7 Oct. 2012. <www.californiality.com/2012/09/liberal-
media-bias-explained.html>
For starters, the author has no given credentials, in fact his name is not even given, so that we can't even learn who he really is. He simply signs the blog as “the California Blogger.” Elsewhere on the website however, his real name and background is given. His name is Mark Lorier, but as for his credentials, these are still shady. “Professionally involved in the areas of media, psychology, law, music, politics and theology since the 1980s, Mark Lorier continues to fulfill strategic, behind-the-scenes advisory roles of influence.” What does this mean? It is very, very vague. Who does he work for, what exactly is his job. Is he a journalist? There is no answer.
Second, not only are there no proper academic citations to sources, there is no form of citing at all. No links to other articles or sources that back up claims, nor any, absolutely any (and I challenge you to find some) sources of information in the text itself. No “according to,” or “in recent news” etc. Last is the shady language itself. For instance “some will tell you that...” This is dishonest and bad writing. Who are these “some?” It is making a shadow of an adversary that might not be there. The whole article is talking about so called “liberal media bias” and looking at the supposed political connection between Hollywood and Washington, but the whole argument is fraught with bad writing and faulty claims.
Blogs have an interesting place in public discourse. A good writer can use them to talk about their personal experience, sharing ideas and insight. Ultimately it has the potential to bring people together and allow them to understand a wider shared human condition. But bad writing will do the opposite. Personal experience, which are full and livid descriptions of the little bit of reality each knows, are shed for high claims about a blurry reality no one can truly know. Evidence is shed for fallacious ideas, mythological in scale, which are addressed as basic fact. Argument is shed for claims.
When I say “argument is shed for claims,” I mean this. Take for example this alternative argument on the issue of liberal media bias, linked below. It is a video posted on YouTube of the linguist Noam Chomsky. Chomsky comes to the argument knowing the background of the argument. He knows what arguments have been made, what studies, and what evidence there is both for and against the idea, so that he can fully address the study that says that 80% of journalists vote democratic, by saying that this is like saying the factory worker's views are the motives of the company. While “The California Blogger” is only making claims, not addressing the wider discourse around him or her, Chomsky is doing the opposite. He does not simply claim “there is no evidence for liberal media bias,” he is is aware of the arguments that have been made and addresses them, thus place himself in the discourse like a scholar would in an academic discourse.
Lorier, Mark. "Liberal Media Bias Explained." Californiality. LexisNexis, 29 Sept. 2012. Web. 7 Oct. 2012. <www.californiality.com/2012/09/liberal-
media-bias-explained.html>
For starters, the author has no given credentials, in fact his name is not even given, so that we can't even learn who he really is. He simply signs the blog as “the California Blogger.” Elsewhere on the website however, his real name and background is given. His name is Mark Lorier, but as for his credentials, these are still shady. “Professionally involved in the areas of media, psychology, law, music, politics and theology since the 1980s, Mark Lorier continues to fulfill strategic, behind-the-scenes advisory roles of influence.” What does this mean? It is very, very vague. Who does he work for, what exactly is his job. Is he a journalist? There is no answer.
Second, not only are there no proper academic citations to sources, there is no form of citing at all. No links to other articles or sources that back up claims, nor any, absolutely any (and I challenge you to find some) sources of information in the text itself. No “according to,” or “in recent news” etc. Last is the shady language itself. For instance “some will tell you that...” This is dishonest and bad writing. Who are these “some?” It is making a shadow of an adversary that might not be there. The whole article is talking about so called “liberal media bias” and looking at the supposed political connection between Hollywood and Washington, but the whole argument is fraught with bad writing and faulty claims.
Blogs have an interesting place in public discourse. A good writer can use them to talk about their personal experience, sharing ideas and insight. Ultimately it has the potential to bring people together and allow them to understand a wider shared human condition. But bad writing will do the opposite. Personal experience, which are full and livid descriptions of the little bit of reality each knows, are shed for high claims about a blurry reality no one can truly know. Evidence is shed for fallacious ideas, mythological in scale, which are addressed as basic fact. Argument is shed for claims.
When I say “argument is shed for claims,” I mean this. Take for example this alternative argument on the issue of liberal media bias, linked below. It is a video posted on YouTube of the linguist Noam Chomsky. Chomsky comes to the argument knowing the background of the argument. He knows what arguments have been made, what studies, and what evidence there is both for and against the idea, so that he can fully address the study that says that 80% of journalists vote democratic, by saying that this is like saying the factory worker's views are the motives of the company. While “The California Blogger” is only making claims, not addressing the wider discourse around him or her, Chomsky is doing the opposite. He does not simply claim “there is no evidence for liberal media bias,” he is is aware of the arguments that have been made and addresses them, thus place himself in the discourse like a scholar would in an academic discourse.