#source evaluation

i was wrong about what they meant with the 🔻 emoji and i am officially rescinding my previous statement

I am all for fact checking and I would love to believe that Heritage Posts did not mean this particular horrible thing they did.

However, Middle East Monitor (MEMO) is not a reliable source for information in this conflict. If HP is actually using MEMO for news, they should focus on more reliable ones going forward.

There are plenty of other left-leaning sources with more reliability, credibility, sourcing, and transparency.

They have failed several fact checks for misleading and occasionally false information. The publication is explicitly and repeatedly pro-Hamas, and they often omit vital information to skew their stories.

While they are not rated as an outright propaganda publication or as a source of conspiracy theories, they do often cite sources which do and are.

Finally, they are funded by donations. Of course these donations largely come from people who support the kind of reporting that people who donate to them support. They are a nonprofit organization, which is not inherently a bad thing. But this means their interests are not based in journalistic ideals but in political ideology. This is not a reason to completely discount a source, but it is something to keep in mind.

In general, with a topic this intense and with such profound consequences for so many people, I’m only engaging with sources who receive a “reporting” rating of “high” or better and a “credibility” rating of “high credibility.”

I would POSSIBLY consider a “reporting” rating of “Mostly factual” if it had a “high credibility” rating and several extenuating circumstances and reduced media bias to compensate for its lower score in another area.

Leftist sources worth referencing instead:

Forward Progressives

Haaretz

International Policy Digest

Current Affairs

And many others

Personally, though, (for this particular conflict especially) I tend to prefer sources that fall into the central three categories: left-center biased, least biased, and right-center biased.

No news source is perfect or without bias. But this conflict is so fraught that I frankly don’t trust anyone reporting with extreme ideological intentions. And I also don’t want to only read sources that make me comfortable. I am personally very leftist in all of my personal politics and voting. However, I also know that the far left has been more hostile to me based solely on my Jewish ethnicity than anyone else in these past months. Furthermore, I think politicians should be more left, but journalism should always prioritize facts and a full scope of a situation over any one viewpoint. I am the daughter of a journalist. I am deeply in favor of journalistic freedom. And I absolutely do NOT believe in “both sidesism.” Sometimes, there really aren’t two sides to a situation that are both equally worth listening to. There is no alternative viewpoint to “Black Lives Matter” for example that is not deeply racist.

There are not “two sides worth teaching” when it comes to The Holocaust.

But the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not so simple. Israel should stop its bombing of Palestine. Palestinians should have full and equal rights. Jewish people in Israel and around the world should not have to live in constant fear or attack, harassment, or murder. There are a lot of extremely valid perspectives from Palestinians, Muslims, Israelis, Arabs, and Jews. And right now, the far left and the far right are weaponizing their ideologies to reduce all of the aforementioned groups to their worst actors. That is not something that will help anyone with regard to this conflict.

Left Leaning Sources

ABC News

Associated Press

Atlantic Media

Boston Globe

The Forward (This is a Jewish source. They had one failed fact check in the last five years, but issued an official correction.)

Human Rights Watch

Institute for Middle East Understanding (This is a Palestinian source and it has a completely clean fact check record)

Least Biased Sources

Jewish Telegraphic Agency (Obviously a Jewish source)

Reuters (this has a Very High reporting rating)

American Press Institute (not only have they not failed a fact check in five years; they have never failed a fact check ever)

The Conversation

Pew Research

Foreign Policy

Foreign Affairs

Sky News UK

Right Leaning

Note: As I stated numerous times, including in this post, I am a leftist. However, something important for American readers of this post to know is that, when it comes specifically to matters involving military analysis of foreign conflicts, a slight right lean in perspective is common and sometimes preferable to leftist idealism. I say this as someone who votes and holds opinions that are about as far left as one can get. However, I also say this as someone with a background in university studies of international politics. Because analysis of military conflicts is often done by those with experience in and understanding of the military, most of the most credible and detailed analyses of foreign military affairs do tend to be more right leaning than sources of equal worth focused on domestic political matters. Furthermore, a leftist tendency toward pacifism (which I share) tends to mean less leftist involvement in military-involved political matters at all. Of course, none of this means there are no quality leftist sources on the current conflict (which I obviously demonstrated by linking to such sources above). I am simply explaining the value of such sources to those who may justifiably be skeptical of anything right-leaning after the hellish past two decades of domestic policies and US-caused violence in other countries.

Note 2: There are plenty of right-leaning sources that received “high” credibility ratings and “high” reporting ratings. I found no sources that had both “very high” credibility and “high” reporting ratings in the “right-center” category.

Boston Herald

Chicago Tribune

Counter Extremism Project

Foreign Policy Research Institute

The Jewish Press (clearly a Jewish source, this publication is geared toward the Modern Orthodox Jewish community. They have no failed fact checks)

ITV News

Jewish Unpacked (this source has no failed fact checks. this source is right-leaning by necessity because of its historical examination of antisemitism in leftist spaces making those spaces inherently unsafe for Jews—not specifically in this most recent flare up in the I/p conflict, but for years).

Right Bias

Note: I don’t personally follow or read any of these sources. But I did list leftist sources with high credibility and reporting ratings, so I will do the same here in the interest of fairness. It should be noted that all other source bias ratings had results several pages long. Right Bias sources with high credibility and reporting ratings were confined to one page only. There are no Right Bias Sources with Very High reporting ratings and high credibility.

Economic Policy Journal (no failed fact checks now or ever)

Influence Watch (tends to view liberal and progressive politics as “extremist,” but has no failed fact checks.)

So jinglysocks.grog ask people about their opinion on jollyofsnot.gloryhole because it makes people feel like their opinion matters (to the person who is asking the question), when in reality, jingleofstegosaurus.gromp couldn't care less. They just want to exploit the human need for connection and validation. The way they promote themselves is so sinister, so predatory. It's disgusting.

We (as a community) need to be very careful about the way we respond to asks containing (unfamiliar) organisations, brands or websites.

Don't just scroll through their website. Look up what other people have said about them. Look at their credentials. Examine their sources. Ask (trusted) members of your community about them.

For example, if jaguarofscotchegg.rouge actually were the largest [whatever] group, then surely people would have heard about them? Ask yourself why someone would lie about something like that. To gain authority? To seem more legit?

Ask yourself why someone would want to know your personal opinion on whatever they're asking about. Are you a scholar? Do you know a lot about the topic? Are you a spiritual leader? Do you have a large following? Have you interacted with this individual before? Do you know them? Do you have something that they lack?

Think critically. Don't allow people to exploit your willingness to connect with members of your own community. Don't expose your community to predatory or dangerous brands and organisations.

Disclaimer: This post is specifically about asks that feature organisations, links to websites, or brands in such a way that it works as promotion for said organisations, websites, or brands. You don't need to vet someone who asks about your opinion on popcorn or whatever.

The Gaza Ministry of Health:

Administered by Hamas, a Hamas-led agency. The UN, WHO, and Human Rights Watch has traditionally considered total numbers from the organization reliable, but the US has doubted the information. The United Nations has a strong anti-Israel bias (each color indicates a different source) and the US has a strong pro-Israel bias. The WHO is administered by the United Nations, and is this subject to the same bias the UN holds. Aside from the fact that Hamas is a terrorist organization that does not care about Palestinian welfare, there are other significant issues with the ministry’s data collection and methodology: namely they do not distinguish between civilian deaths and militant/non-civilian deaths. It also attributes all deaths caused by Hamas misfires to “Israeli aggression.” This is not a small number of deaths that could be attributed incorrectly. Hamas has fired over 7,000 rockets at Israel as of October 28, and that number has only kept growing since. For example, the rocket misfire that destroyed the Al-Ahli hospital alone killed between 100-300 Palestinians. All of those deaths were attributed to Israeli aggression. And that is just one rocket. Due to the way they keep data, it is impossible for anyone to know how many deaths are results of Israeli sources or Hamas sources.

Conclusion: The ministry of health in Gaza is not accurate and should not be trusted for a variety of reasons. While the numbers given by this organization may come somewhat close to capturing the general scale of Palestinian death, it incorrectly places each death at the hands of Israelis. There is no other good source for how many Palestinian deaths there are total, so it is difficult to verify the numbers (although historically, the numbers themselves have done fairly well against scrutiny). But the method of collection, biased source, and other shenanigans about how things are calculated make this source unreliable.

So. Many. People. on this site uncritically reblog disinformation/fakenews/misinformation/reality denying posts/etc., which really hurts now, since we should all know at this point that there are bad actors using social media to deliberately spread false information for their own ends. This is something that frustrates me deeply as an IS professional and as a regular, generally educated human. You don't need to help psyops or hate groups by spreading their misinformation friends. It's hard to tell what the truth is sometimes, I get that, especially in today's climate where right-wing bad actors have done their damnedest to muddy the waters of truth in harmful ways, and where information is basically laser beaming itself onto your eyeballs at a dizzingy speed with the power of the internet.

I'll admit to you right now that I fell for (and shared) some misinformation from the psyop blogs in 2016, so I am by no means saying that I'm some kind of perfect paragon on this point. But Jesus Christ people we are all (hopefully) very aware of the psyops now. Like that happened. We KNOW that there are bad actors spreading disinformation on this webbed site (and many others) and it's only going to get worse the closer we get to November. The 2016 psyops btw, were the subject of an 85 page report as part of the 5 part report on Russian interference in the 2016 election from the selective intelligence committee in the US senate. We also know that the Russian IRA is using psyop campaigns to target Ukraine/Ukrainians. This was and is a very real threat to democracy, truth, progress, and marginalized people everywhere.

Three topics that are hot for disinformation/false news/and misinformation on this site (and others) are the upcoming 2024 presidential elections, I/P, and Russia/Ukraine. These are 3 topics that you should be very discerning about your sources on, as there is copious false information being spread like wildfire across social media about these three topics, to the benefit of a wide range of governments, companies, and special interests from many groups along the political spectrum. Something, something, you are not immune to propaganda.

But the thing is, you have the power to help stop the spread of stupid misinformation and lies on this site (and others)! By checking sources on an issue post BEFORE you share it, you can stop fake information from spreading. You can further help by telling your friends, blocking these posts, and blocking posters who repeatedly and unashamedly spread this kind of disinformation.

Or hell, don't share issue posts at all; you don't need to have a prepared PR statement with poasts about every issue ever. You can pick and chose what you share on your social media and limit it to issues that you feel confident you can find and share good, true, reliable information about, with good, reliable actionable steps. Especially here on tumblr, you are under ZERO obligation to blog about any particular topic, no matter what other people are saying. YOU are the ultimately arbiter of what goes out onto YOUR blog.

I totally get that it is exhausting to have to check your sources, but if you're not feeling up for checking sources you have the option to NOT share current event/issue posts, and I would encourage you to do this. Joining in outrage trains that don't have actionable steps afterwards doesn't really help anyone. Once again you don't have to speak about every issue and you have no obligation to provide PR statements about your opinions on every issue ever. It is also 100% OK to admit and acknowledge that something is outside of your knowledge base or expertise and that you do not consider yourself a good source for information on a particular topic. You have options, and people who send you hateful messages telling you otherwise are behaving like clowns, and don't deserve your time. Your time is limited on this bitch of an Earth and there's no reason to waste it caring about the opinions of people who wake up and choose to be cruel to others online.

You should be deeply suspicious of any posts that are deliberately designed to make you feel furious and/or hopeless, especially if they don't also have actionable suggestions. Double especially when they seem to be coming from somone "on your side." Even if the OP isn't a bad actor, doomposting and doomscrolling are ultimately bad for you (and for OP and for everyone else), because it does nothing productive; all it does is makes you feel bad/guilty, which I'm gonna be real, is deeply christian of you people.

BUT if you're going to share issue posts here are some questions you should be asking to evaluate your sources from your local librarian (me):

SOURCE: Who is the publisher of this source? Where are they getting their information? Who else is citing this source? What are the credentials of the publication? (Why should this publication be trusted to provide good information about [subject]? Is this source known to be a source that provides accurate and reliable information?) Who does the publication have connections to? Who funds this source? (largely in the case of news, is it a state-sponsored source? Is this source funded by special interest groups? Is this source sponsored by a specific corporate sponsor?) Might the publication have a conflict of interest related to the topic (essentially, do they gain any specific benefit for presenting the information in a certain way?)

AUTHOR: Who is the author of this source? What motivations might they have? What is their background? What other things are they publishing? Who do they have connections to? (as with the publication, is the author directly connected to [subject presented] in a way that might conflict with their ability to accurately present this information? Does the author have connections to individuals or groups known to provide false information?)

For posters, who is the OP? Looking at their page/blog, what information do they provide about themselves (they have no obligation to share personal information on here of course, but what information they chose to share can be telling about their motivations and whether or not they are a real person.) Does the OP show any signs that suggest they are a bot? How old is OPs blog? What are their other kinds of posts? Does OP have other posts that contain obvious disinformation? Do they interact with others in good faith? Do they engage in public harassment of other users? Do they have other posts that contain dog whistles or other rhetoric used by known hate groups (ie: rhetoric/language known to be used by TERFS, n^zis, white supremacists, incels, or other extremist or exclusionist groups). Do they regularly share information from publications widely known to be unreliable or false?

TIMELINESS : When was this information published? This is perhaps one of the most important questions you can ask about any news event, because when it comes to current events, the information known or available about them changes as time passes and often earlier information on a situation contains understandable inaccuracies. When was it last updated? Is this the most current version of this source, or are there newer editions? (For example, the same news source may have multiple articles about the same event, so it's important to check if the one you're sharing is the most current one) When was the information collected? (If the source you're citing was published currently are they relying on the most current information or are their sources less current?)

EVIDENCE: What evidence does the source cite for their claims? [are they using primary and secondary sources? For background information, who do they cite?) Can you find other sources that support these claims? (If you see a statistic or number, are there other sources that also cite that same statistic or number? Who is the actual source of that statistic? If an article makes a claim, can you find other articles from different publications that also make that claim? Do those other sources have credentials that make them a reliable source of information on [subject]? If this claim is only being cited by a small number of publications, while a larger number of publications make different claims about [subject] why might this be?) What sources is the author using to find the information they're presenting? (Beyond interviewed sources, what sources does the author use to get their facts? Who do they cite for statistics, numbers or other data?) Who are they interviewing? (in the case of a news article, which POVs is the author relying on for their article? If the article was about the actions of a corporation, does the author only rely on information given to them by a PR rep for that same corporation or do they interview other sources related to the story?)

In the case of a post, who does the OP cite as a source for their information? If the only source is a tik tok video, are there other sources that agree with the information presented in that video? Videos and images can be doctored by AI or by people. The way that images and videos are composed, framed and presented can radically change how their audience interprets or understands the information being presented. What does the framing of the image tell us about the author's perspective on [topic]?

TONE/LANGUAGE: What kind of language or rhetoric does the author use when presenting the information? Does the author of the source or the post use inflammatory language, designed to elicit a power emotional response? Does the source use language that creates a sense of hopelessness? What kind of language does the article or poster use when talking about individuals from marginalized peoples? Does the poster or the source use language that is known to be rhetoric attached to specific prejudices/bigotry (essentially is the language used from known talking points of hate groups?)

Studying the language used in the source, does it appear to be a source presenting facts, opinions or propaganda? Many sources will be some mixture of these things, especially when it comes to news sources, so the question becomes, which of these three things is the strongest bent of the source?

Here are some additional sources that you can visit to read or watch more about source evaluation from a variety of college/university libraries:

Santa Barbara City College Luria Library on source evaluation University of California Berkley Library on source evaluation Kettering University Library on source evaluation Harvard University on source evaluation Dominican University Rebecca Crown Library on source evaluation Seattle University Lemieux Library and McGoldrick Learning Commons on source evaluation University of Virginia Library on source Evaluation

selected bibliography:

Neill Hoch, Indira. 2020. “Russian Internet Research Agency Disinformation Activities on Tumblr: Identity, Privacy, and Ambivalence.” Social Media + Society 6 (4): 205630512096178. https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305120961783.

Issie Lapowsky. 2018. “Tumblr Names Russian Propaganda Accounts after Long Silence.” Wired. WIRED. March 23, 2018. https://www.wired.com/story/tumblr-russia-trolls-propaganda/.

Martineau, Paris. 2019. “Russia’s Disinformation War Is Just Getting Started.” Wired. WIRED. October 8, 2019. https://www.wired.com/story/russias-disinformation-war-is-just-getting-started/.

‌U.S. Congress, Senate, Select Committee on Intelligence, Russian Active Measures, Campaigns and Interference in the 2016 U.S. Election Volume 2: Russia's Use of Social Media With Additional Views, 116th Cong., 1rst sess., 2020, S-Rep. 116-290, https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Report_Volume2.pdf.

U.S. Congress, Senate, Select Committee on Intelligence, Russian Active Measures, Campaigns and Interference in the 2016 U.S. Election Report Volumes I-V Together With Additional Views, 116th Cong., 2d sess., 2020, S-Rep. 116-290, https://www.congress.gov/116/crpt/srpt290/CRPT-116srpt290.pdf.

Winder, Davey. n.d. “Russia Targets Ukraine with Hybrid Cyberattack.” Forbes. Accessed February 26, 2024. https://www.forbes.com/sites/daveywinder/2024/02/21/russia-unleashes-2-pronged-psyops-and-cyberattack-on-ukraine/?sh=2297053f4540.

Cassidy, Caitlin. 2022. “Doomscrolling Linked to Poor Physical and Mental Health, Study Finds.” The Guardian. September 5, 2022. https://www.theguardian.com/society/2022/sep/06/doomscrolling-linked-to-poor-physical-and-mental-health-study-finds.

A rough guide to spotting bad science -- from Compound Interest