Cited Sources and Credibility

There is a lot going on in the world today. No matter which news station you turn on, to which paper you may read, devastation is happening, celebrities are breaking up, or getting hitched, and technology is always changing- the latest being Apple's possible "phablet".

An article from Huffington Post discusses one of the major news stories for the past 2 weeks, the Government Shutdown. You will hear about it everywhere you look, not just in the news, but on blogs, social media sites, and standing in line at the grocery store. But one of the things about the shutdown, though perhaps a desperate time for someone living paycheck to paycheck, is the back pay people receive when the government finally reopens. At least, most employees for Uncle Sam believe that they will be given their back pay. From NASA workers to the US Department of Health, many are counting on a big check when they return to their post, desks, or cubicle. 

But Thursday's Huffington Post article alerts readers, particular government employees, that some won't be running so quickly to the bank when work starts up, again (Wilkey, 2013). In an article titled, "15,000 Workers Won't Get Back Pay After Shutdown," the online newspaper warns, "Non-government workers connected to national parks are but a slice of the workforce affected by the government shutdown. It's unclear how many private-sector employees may be out of work" (Wilkey, 2013). Workers of the National Park system, as well as non-governmental employees who run businesses, such as restaurants, on national park land, are only receiving the shut-off and will not get governmental pay backs when the Capital Hill catastrophe is over.  

The Huffington Post linked their story to four sources. Of the five sources, only one of them was from another news corporation discussion the same story, ABC News, which was linked twice. The other sources were links to an NPR article on the federal government approving pay backs,  a link to The Cliff House which is a restaurant mentioned in the article that has had to shut its doors, and a Washington Post article date October 8th, citing no decision has been made in regard to government contractors. 

While the government shutdown has all sorts of stories leaking on all corners of the Internet, this Huffington Post article has validity. It fits the criteria for being an accurate news story. It fits the criteria of the author having a background in news media, with a link to her own personal biography and the author is linked to the online newspaper. While their are no peer reviews for the author, her post is not biased, but rather a piece on national park contractors and not getting paid. The article is current, coming from this week, and the Huffington Post is constantly updating their site. The links provided are also recent news stories, from the government approving pay backs to the government workers, but not including contractors with the government. Except for the link directing a reader to the restaurant mentioned, all links are from other credible sources, following the same criteria (Montecino, 1998). 

Sources:

Wilkey, R. (2013, October 10). 15,000 workers won't get back pay after shutdown. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/10/shutdown-back-pay_n_4081483.html?ir=Small Business 

Montecino, V. (1998, August). Criteria to evaluate the credibility of www resources . Retrieved from http://mason.gmu.edu/~montecin/web-eval-sites.htm

Social Media: Know-It-All

I regularly log on to Facebook, more than any other social media site. At first, I thought, most of these posts have to be real because they are written by real people. Even though some are meaningless, for instance someone posts about getting a contract on a house they are trying to sell to someone sharing a passive-aggressive post about "Look in the mirror before judging others!!". The second post was definitely directed at someone, and they must have wanted their target to read their status. 

But, lots of talk this week have been about the government shutdown. While it is all over the news, some of the stories, especially when someone wants to be the first to post about the man setting himself on fire on the National Mall, tend to stretch the truth. Of course, if I were just reading status updates, I would not get an accurate portrayal of the turmoil we are in, no matter if it is better, or worse. 

However, I did learn something about the advertisements on my Facebook feed. In between every six or so updates on a profile, there is an option to "Like" a page. The advertisement leads the reader to a website, or an article, maybe for a product, a new show, or a website. The one I clicked on was for a Vitamin. It led me to a page with an article written my someone from Women's Health and how taking this specific vitamin changed their life. It was full of information, great results from an experiment, and an urging to buy the product, and what company to do so from. 

Embarrassingly enough, I actually ordered the vitamins. I believed what I was reading. But a few days into it, I looked up the real site for Women's Health, I poked around and did research to see if Dr. Oz really endorsed it, or if 9 out of 10 women experienced the same results. I was fooled! The link and the author, though having the same heading for Women's Health was not affiliated at all. The research I did proved that no such endorsements were made, and I found nothing on any such result findings. I simply "Googled" the information, found news articles (real, credible sources) and was taught a valuable lesson. Facebook was putting advertisers on there, targeting me, to simply make a few bucks, and for whatever company that actually was to get some social media marketing.

Social media sites are not reliable for accurate information. They can be updated in a flash, that a post can be put out there before the real story is even finished. Or, links to certain advertising companies can be making false claims, and it is no big deal because all they care about is the exposure. 

I am sure that sometimes Facebook and other social media sites do have credible information. Mostly though, I think that information is credible when it is a user talking about his or herself. But even then, a virtual persona may be just that, and hold no credibility at all. Unless you're there, or you know the source, or person is credible in what they post- a status update is nothing more than an attempted way to boost your status.