A Credibility Evaluation of the Article "Slow Progress On Long-Term Unemployment Benefits As 1.6 Million Miss Out"

Sited sources from the article, Slow Progress On Long-Term Unemployment Benefits As 1.6 Million Miss Out.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/24/unemployment-benefits_n_4661010.html#slide=3014761

Sources

• Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.)
• Moderate Senate Republicans
• This article from their own site http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/14/unemployment-insurance-senate_n_4597918.html
• This article from their site http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/17/house-democrats-unemployment_n_4612641.html
• The Labor Department http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf
• Shannon Gaiser of Butler, Pa., an unemployed substance abuse counselor
• A response letter from Rep. Michael Kelly (R-Pa.)

An Evaluation of this article’s credibility

Arthur Delaney is the author of the article along with being coauthor on both of the articles he sited in this piece.

1. Is there any evidence that the author of the Web information has some authority in the field about which she or he is providing information? What are the author's qualifications, credentials and connections to the subject? 

• Delaney is a Huffington Post contributor that focuses on unemployment and other economic issues according to his profile on the site. He has been with the Huffingotn Post since 2009.
•  He has written for the Washington City Paper, The Hill newspaper, Slate Magazine, and ABCNews.com
•  He has also written an EBook titled A People's History of the Great Recession.

2. With what organization or institution is the author associated? Is there a link to the sponsoring organization, a contact number and/or address or e-mail contact? A link to an association does not necessarily mean that the organization approved the content. 

•  It is only listed that he is affiliated with the news organizations he works for as a reporter.

3. Does the author have publications in peer reviewed (scholarly and professional) publications, on the Web or in hard copy? (If an author does not have peer reviewed articles published, this does not mean that she or he does not have credible information, only that there has been no professional "test" of the author's authority on that subject.) 

• The author has received awards for his journalism including the Street Sense David A. Pike Excellence in Journalism award and a Sidney Award from the Hillman Foundation

4. Are there clues that the author/s are biased? For example, is he/she selling or promoting a product? Is the author taking a personal stand on a social/political issue or is the author being objective? Bias is not necessarily "bad," but the connections should be clear. 

• Though he does not seem to be promoting a particular bias in this article it should be noted that the Huffington Post tends to be a left leaning organization.

5. Is the Web information current? If there are a number of out-of-date links that do not work or old news, what does this say about the credibility of the information?

•  Web information is up-to-date.

6. Does the information have a complete list of works cited, which reference credible, authoritative sources? If the information is not backed up with sources, what is the author's relationship to the subject to be able to give an "expert" opinion? 

•  There is a link to most of the sources and quotes from the personal interview.

7. Can the subject you are researching be fully covered with WWW sources or should print sources provide balance? Much scholarly research is still only available in traditional print form. It is safe to assume that if you have limited background in a topic and have a limited amount of time to do your research, you may not be able to get the most representative material on the subject. So be wary of making unsupportable conclusions based on a narrow range of sources. 

• In this article there is a mix. The links are to other articles but also to a press release by the Labor Department. He also used quotes from a press conference and quotes from a person experiencing the effects of the subject and a letter in her position from a Congressman’s Office.

8. On what kind of Web site does the information appear? The site can give you clues about the credibility of the source.

•  Huffington Post is a national News/Journalists site

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This Article reports on the activities of Congress this week surrounding unemployment and the effects these actions (or lack there of) are having on those who are unemployed. It is important that the article uses both direct quotes from member of Congress in the article and sites reports released by the organization that is responsible for releasing data on just this subject.

In an age where any opinion has a forum on the web, it is important to seek reporting that gives information that is rooted in fact and reliable sources. Delaney himself presents a level of credibility because his reporting on this particular subject has been ongoing. Through all of his reporting he shows that he is committed to telling a complete story.

To increase his ability to appear as impartial he could have, in addition to personal account from an unemployed woman, included the opinion of someone who is against the extending of unemployment.  Overall, however I believe the article serves as a fairly complete snapshot of information on the subject at the time. The article somewhat serves as a small piece of a larger whole of information surrounding the unemployment benefits subject.

Social Media and Truth

Question everything. That's the mantra I live by when learning new information from the internet.

It tends to begin with one of the friends I follow on twitter or posting some piece of information. I take the bait if it seems liken interesting story. I click on the link if there is one, and so begins my quest to find out if I believe the story is true.

If at first look the link takes me to what I consider a reputable news source, then I might be content. If the story isn't too outlandish, I may be satisfied. If not, the hunt continues. I have clicked on that initial link that peaks my interest several times and then spent significant time in search for the truth.

I feel like I know the truth about a story when there is a first hand account, photographic or video evidence or two or more major news sources use the words "we can confirm."

Depending on the importance of the story I may not go to such lengths. A celebrity breakup may not grab my attention and someone prematurely killed off on twitter for the fifth time might just be too unbelievable to waist time looking up. There's also the occasion where others in social media figure out if a story is untrue before I need to do it myself.

Today I learned that Oliver Stone will not be directing the Martin Luther King biopic via a friend's Facebook post. The friend cited that the studio did not want to allow him to include his documented infidelity in the movie. This particular post was also shared by another friend and included the following link: http://insidemovies.ew.com/2014/01/17/oliver-stone-martin-luther-king-project/

Within the article there are screen shots from Oliver Stone's twitter feed to validate the truthfulness of the article and to further show his explanation of why he is not directing the film. Stone himself is  providing confirmation. For me, this story meets my criteria for truth.

Influence of the Media

When I wake up in the morning the first thing I do is check email, then bank account, Facebook, Instagram and Groupme. This is all on my phone and before I get out of bed, and sometimes this ritual is interrupted by me dozing back off into a brief slumber. I just might have a have a problem.

I consider myself to be a media voyeur. On a daily basis I consume as many pieces of information from as many sources that I possibly can, while rarely adding my own comment or opinion. I wake up and turn on CNN while simultaneously playing my favorite radio station in Atlanta from the comfort of my Syracuse bathroom shower (thanks to the wonderful Radio app). I sit at work, headphones in ear listening to Pandora while surfing my desktop web for Army Recruiting relevant photos, video and articles, and stop to check my twitter feed when my boss isn't looking. I'm a sucker for buzzfeed lists and political and media controversy that happens throughout any given day.

I do all of these things but I am rarely the person participating in a juicy hashtag or leaving an angry comment on an article that has made me upset by it's lack of research on a given subject. I update my personal Facebook status only a few times a year and change my profile picture only after a particularly cute night on the town.

The interesting thing about all of this is that I am a champion for social media at work. I am my organization's social media manager, I've been learning all there is to know about optimizing Hoot Suite, I give a presentation called "I love LinkedIn and you should too," I even take the time out of many days to get people's individual twitter accounts set up with a long list of suggestions on who they should follow. I am a participant in all forms of media I can get my hands on…but I keep my personal voice reserved mostly for those who know me personally.

A big news story about an event will completely consume my whole day. There are so many mediums available to get details and I enjoy few things more than watching a story unfold live. I may be a cynic because I enjoy all of the misinformation at the break of big news too. I believe that this has become much more prevalent in the age of having to get to audiences first with the story, when first often means the person on the scene with an iPhone and a twitter account. True and vetted information can't possibly come out that soon, so news agencies and the blogosphere go with first reports in the spirit of half truthful information is better than no information (breaking news was designed to correct earlier ill informed reports right??)

I for one, think the way we get information today is perfect. Story's unfold with us learning information at the same time as the reporters are giving it to us. I have beat Wolf Blitzer several times in the who heard it first game, and I look forward to those moments when I get to spend a whole evening trying to get the correct story from a mix of Reuters news wire updates and reposts on Facebook from someone who has all of the realtime information. This age of information we are in definitely has made me more conscious of what a good source of information is, what isn't and when that is an important factor. I enjoy the challenge.