Question of the Week
First of all, I want to thank everyone who answered last week’s question about the reliability of Wikipedia. The discussion there was one of the most vibrant of the blog so far. Between that and the subsequent post about Fox News, it made me realize that there is a larger question we need to address here: What does it mean for a source to be reliable?
The answer may be changing with the culture, and some quick background reading may help support that potentially controversial claim. Cynthia points us to the article in the The Chronicle for Higher Education The Intellectual in the Infosphere, which hits a lot of key issues in a short space and is definitely worth checking out. I also have an earlier post about the changing nature of information in the digital age. And then there’s the Karl Fisch video.
So with all that in mind, it’s as important as it’s ever been to ask what it actually means for a source to be reliable. Does it simply mean that we can count on it for accurate facts? Or do we require more from our sources than just fact checking?
Is it important for a source to give us balance between different points of view? Or can a source be reliable and just give us one point of view? And if the source only provides one point of view, how important is it for the source to share our values? Could different sources be reliable for different people, or is reliable meant to be an objective term?
Is a source that provides a more depth of coverage always more reliable than a superficial one? Does quality of writing affect reliability? Does a proven track record count for anything? Or do these factors co-exist with reliability without affecting it? Is a primary source always more reliable than a secondary source? Or can secondary sources bring qualities to the table that can increase reliability?
And does reliability cover just facts? Or can sources also provide opinions? Are you more likely to be persuaded to share an opinion that’s expressed by a source you already trust? Is that a part of reliability? Is it even possible for a source to be value neutral? Or does a source always have an inherent value system by the choices it makes in what information to present? If a source presents information in a way that doesn’t fit your worldview, which sources can affect your willingness to reevaluate that worldview, and which sources would simply make you doubt the source?
Does the element of time affect reliability? The book you purchase in the book store may have been written months ago, while a website might be updated while you’re reading it. Does this affect reliability, and if so, in which direction?
Once you’ve answered these questions for yourself, I’d like you to consider the relative reliability of the following twenty sources when it comes to information, perspectives, and opinions about, say, the Bush administration:
A. Joe Biden on This Week with George Stephanopoulos
B. Wolf Blitzer on CNN
C. Dick Cheney on Meet the Press
D. Noam Chomsky in a new book published by AK Press
E. Katie Couric on The CBS Evening News
F. The New Encyclopedia Britannica, 2007 edition (Hardcover)
G. Thomas Friedman in a New York Times Op-Ed
H. Seymour Hersh in the current issue of The New Yorker
I. Brit Hume on Fox News
J. Russ Kick in a new book published by the Disinformation Company
K. Rush Limbaugh on his radio show
L. Michael Moore in a new documentary
M. Sean Penn while accepting an acting award
N. Tony Snow from the White House briefing room
O. Jon Stewart on Comedy Central’s The Daily Show
P. The White House website
Q. Christie Todd Whitman on Real Time with Bill Maher
R. Wikipedia in an entry with no controversy alerts
S. Bob Woodward in a new book published by Simon & Schuster
T. Markos Zuniga on his blog The Daily Kos
I lettered them instead of numbering them because you may wish, as part of your answer to the question below, to rank some or all of these twenty sources in order from most reliable to least reliable. If two of these sources gave conflicting information, which would you be more open to, and why? What if their information didn’t conflict, but they selcted facts that promoted different biases? What if their facts were the same, but they presented conflicting opinions?
What does it mean to you for a source to be reliable?
April 16th, 2007 at 5:36 pm
Okay, I’ve made my own ranking of the twenty sources from most reliable to least reliable. I found the task more difficult than I had thought, mostly because all of the different factors affecting reliability listed in the post can be in conflict with one another. Also, there are different kinds of information, and some sources may be better for some kinds of information than others. There’s also context – if one source proactively corrects another, I’d be more likely to trust the correcting source – unless it seemed to me that an agenda was at work, and that’s where values come in, in which case…
But with all that in mind, here are my own generalized rankings from most reliable to least reliable, based on my own conceptions of reliability and my varied knowledge of each of the twenty sources:
1. Seymour Hersh in the current issue of The New Yorker
2. Noam Chomsky in a new book published by AK Press
3. Bob Woodward in a new book published by Simon & Schuster
4. Joe Biden on This Week with George Stephanopoulos
5. Wolf Blitzer on CNN
6. Christie Todd Whitman on Real Time with Bill Maher
7. Thomas Friedman in a New York Times Op-Ed
8. Markos Zuniga on his blog The Daily Kos
9. Wikipedia in an entry with no controversy alerts
10. Russ Kick in a new book published by the Disinformation Company
11. Jon Stewart on Comedy Central’s The Daily Show
12. Katie Couric on The CBS Evening News
13. The New Encyclopedia Britannica, 2007 edition (Hardcover)
14. Michael Moore in a new documentary
15. Brit Hume on Fox News
16. Sean Penn while accepting an acting award
17. The White House website
18. Tony Snow from the White House briefing room
19. Dick Cheney on Meet the Press
20. Rush Limbaugh on his radio show
Of course, it’s entirely possible that they’re all full of BS.
April 19th, 2007 at 1:35 pm
I do plan to do your ranking at some point (the blog is such an embarrassment of riches when it comes to intellectual exercises, I don’t have time to get to them all now but plan to eventually! :-)) But I thought this might be the most relevant place to inform you of a Shakespeare related comment I sent to Anderson Cooper’s 360 program this morning:
I noticed last night that you broadcast the text of an instant message that was sent to a female student at Virginia Tech by the perpetrator of the tragedy there:
“By a name, I know not how to tell who I am. My name, dear saint, is hateful to myself, because it is an enemy to thee. Had I it written, I would tear the word.”
You should have noted that the text was in fact a quote from the balcony scene of Romeo & Juliet. It was a very obvious reference. It’s a bizarre choice, but still a reference to what is the most famous scene in drama, and widely considered the most romantic. It would be rare that any college student or even high school student would not have been exposed to it. Your reporter followed the quote by saying “How could someone so quiet create so much fear?” We all recognize the horrifying and terrifying nature of the continued information we are continuing to receive about one of our nations most egregious and heinous mass murderers. But in trying to get a handle on how people could have let someone such as this slip through the cracks of our society to such a dark place, it’s important not to oversensationalize his every move. It’s not an inherently frightening quote. If it was recognized by a student as being from one of Shakespeare’s most “romantic” plays, they could, at least conceivably, have been somewhat flattered – though confused. It’s not uncommon among the educated to borrow Shakespeare’s words for wooing. There is so much about what was obviously a very ill young man to be disturbed at, particularly in his own writings. There is no need to sensationalize or overstate one attempt for this disassociated loner to connect with another human that may have been one of his more lucid moments. I think it’s a bit lazy to not have investigated what was clearly some sort of quotation on his part (even psychotic delusionals do not tend to speak in verse.) Paranoid schizophrenics – and there seems to be many indications that that was what he was – perceive even the smallest slights in the grandest terms. This would have likely been an example of that. He may have perceived the lack of favorable response to his gesture as yet another justification of his paranoia, which in my opinion would have been the more appropriate framing of the incident. Someone doesn’t become a fearsome monster because they quote poetry to girls they have crushes on. They become fearsome when they overreact to their lack of success and then enact a perceived revenge, which is clearly what occurred here. My concern is that the potential “copy cats” who may be stirred by some of the images and words being released from this individual will be further incensed if we approach our hindsight on this issue with overreaching demonization of every thing he did rather than considered evaluation and education about the nature of the relatively few mentally ill individuals who may be prone to violent behavior. There are, hopefully very few, but perhaps some equally troubled people who may, tragically, relate to such a figure – as terrifying as he is to the rest of us. These are people who few the world as endlessly prosecutorial. I would hope your coverage would avoid giving them further fodder for that perception.
So, Mr. ST, any thoughts? Was I very off base?
April 19th, 2007 at 1:38 pm
And btw, I tried to sign up for your RSS feed but it doesn’t seem to be working for me…. :-(
April 20th, 2007 at 9:57 am
I don’t know what you’re using to view the RSS feed, but I can clarify where to find the feeds. Try this link for posts and this link for comments.
And as for the report, it’s just as well that they didn’t recognize the quote (although who says “thee” anymore?) because then the story would have been whether or not reading Romeo and Juliet caused him to want to take his own life over thwarted love.
I’m really not kidding. There’s your mainstream media.
I look forward to reading your rankings.
April 20th, 2007 at 3:27 pm
O. Jon Stewart on Comedy Central’s The Daily Show
H. Seymour Hersh in the current issue of The New Yorker
R. Wikipedia in an entry with no controversy alerts
D. Noam Chomsky in a new book published by AK Press
F. The New Encyclopedia Britannica, 2007 edition (Hardcover)
B. Wolf Blitzer on CNN
E. Katie Couric on The CBS Evening News
Q. Christie Todd Whitman on Real Time with Bill Maher
T. Markos Zuniga on his blog The Daily Kos
P. The White House website
G. Thomas Friedman in a New York Times Op-Ed
S. Bob Woodward in a new book published by Simon & Schuster
N. Tony Snow from the White House briefing room
A. Joe Biden on This Week with George Stephanopoulos
L. Michael Moore in a new documentary
J. Russ Kick in a new book published by the Disinformation Company
I. Brit Hume on Fox News
C. Dick Cheney on Meet the Press
K. Rush Limbaugh on his radio show
M. Sean Penn while accepting an acting award
You know looking at this I’m not sure that I consider any of them entirely “reliable.” They ALL have drawbacks and should be taken with a grain of salt. I would say that they are reliable in presenting their particular perspective i.e. the Disinformation Company presents conspiracy theories reliably and Tony Snow presents the Administration’s policies and positions reliably, (while those policies themselves are not reliably in the public interest) – do you see what I mean? Honestly, my sense of reliability here tends to correspond to the extent to which we inherently and instinctively doubt them at the get go. But here are my rankings – which should be taken with consideration of my leftist leanings…
April 22nd, 2007 at 8:38 am
I think your rule of thumb for reliability is very useful in these rankings. To what degree can we trust a source at face value, and how much benefit of the doubt have they earned? I’ll go along with that.
So you would trust Tony Snow before Joe Biden? Interesting. You must have had the same reaction to my putting Russ Kick over Jon Stewart. The point of this exercise was to stimulate discussion, so I hope you won’t take the following as a criticism of your rankings, which I very much enjoyed reading. As you point out, there are a lot of murky areas, and our thought exercise doesn’t take context into account.
My top choice was your second to top, and my bottom choice was your second to bottom. In the interest of furthering discussion, I would like to focus on those two extremes, and explain why I disagree. I welcome responses.
I think Jon Stewart is a well-informed comedian who has the ability to read the news and develop insightful and relevant commentary. His contribution is to find the absurdity of these situations, and he often does this by placing them in a larger context. It’s brilliant stuff. But this makes him a tertiary source. He’s getting his information, and probably much of his analysis, from many of the other sources on the list. That makes it difficult for me to rank him higher than them.
As for Rush Limbaugh, he is a liar, plain and simple. There are others on the list who take the facts and spin them to further an agenda. But that’s not what Rush does. Rush just plain makes stuff up. And while Sean Penn may be just a hothead actor with an agenda, I do believe that he believes what he is saying. He’s not a reliable source, no, but he has far more credibility in my opinion than Rush Limbaugh, who deliberately obfuscates.
By the way, how sad is it that the state of affairs is such that the Vice President of the United States ended up so low on both of our lists?
April 22nd, 2007 at 11:16 pm
I think you make excellent arguments and I wouldn’t necessarily disagree. It’s fairly neglible for me to switch Penn and Limbaugh – they are both infinitely dismissable in my estimation, but I will offer my reasoning for the purposes of the discussion – though I would be more than willing to alter my conclusions as again the differences are not so wide in the list in general – let alone the bottom. In the interest of full disclosure, I confess too that I have personal and artistic issues with Sean Penn which influences my perception of him certainly. I detest and despise him. I think he discredits lefties and actors alike. If you would have placed Tim Robbins or Susan Surandon on the list however, you would have found them a very good deal higher. The only reason I would somewhat justify placing Penn lower than Limbaugh is that I think Limbaugh – due to his place as a figurehead for fascists, may have some access to those fascists and consequently may have information passed to him that might make him ever so slightly reliable on some fronts. If he were to say for example that “I know from MY sources in the White House that…” I would be more likely to believe that they actually told him that – even though whatever they told him was certainly twisted spin which he would believe for conveniences sake. there is no question he is a liar and likely knows perfectly well when he is lying and when he isn’t. But with Penn – I don’t think he has access to anyone and ultimately doesn’t bother to differentiate between his opinion and fact nor do I think he would challenge his own assumptions. This is a minute and fine distinction – that Limbaugh knows he is lying and Penn doesn’t know when he is innacurate or not. I think it may be easier to determine reliability from someone who knows they are lying because of the old school notion of “poker tells.” But that’s just instinct on my part. Penn seems to me to be working from scenarios of his own constructing. I think he’s a mainstream delusional. I think Limbaugh – like O’Reilly or Coulter – knows that he’s a demagogue but believes that’s okay in the service of his own agenda. But again, these are impressions based on personal bias so I totally cop to that.
I would trust Snow over Biden because, if you recall, Biden has demonstrated himself (in his late 80’s presidential bid) as a plagirist – having stole chucks of speeches from the English Labour Party leader Neil Kinnock and consequently having to leave the race. In later years he’s demonstrated himself as a politically convenient blowhard ( in my estimation) and makes it seem that he is opposed to the war though I very clearly remember him in a press conference prior to it’s start saying “I have no doubt we’ll be greeted as liberators.” I think he’s an opportunist and I trust him very little indeed.
Your point about Stewart is an exceptional one and is well taken. Again – I don’t disagree at all. If I re-ranked these tomorrow I my very well rank them differently. But for to explain – I recall that there were two factors in my putting him at the top: 1. We know – and he reinforces – that he is a comedian first and foremost. There’s my built in grain of salt. But mainly – we never have any confusion about his ultimate agenda – the laugh. 2. He’s demonstrated as a comedian an unfailing integrity of the level journalists seem to be losing more and more each day. As I’ve followed his career, I’ve seen him fiercely avoid cheap shots for true laughs based on true insights. I have come to trust overtime that as a comedian he will not only look for the laugh, but re-look AT the laugh to make sure the implication is fair and appropriate. When he has crossed a line in the past, he’s re-checked himself (one example: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4196/is_20030608/ai_n10879280 ). So I trust that he’s making an effort to be responsible. But your point is inescapable. He gets his information from the same sources we do. Although I think his staff watch more CSPAN and a bigger sampling of different news sources than any of us have time to.
You might notice – I really just did now – that my top and bottom choices were entertainment figures rather than journalistic or political figures. Maybe, given my interests & passions, I felt more strongly or more qualified to give a thumbs up or down on them… I cop to that as well.
And yes – it is a dire sitch that we casually dismiss the reliability of the Vice President of the United States. It’s so unfortunate for oh so many people and for the country…
April 22nd, 2007 at 11:17 pm
Whoops – anonymous is me… :-)