Miner Queries: Consider sources before casting your vote
What’s a credible source?
As we head into the heart of mid-term election season, I am recalling 2012 election night, when Republican strategist Karl Rove melted down on FOX News over the Ohio results. Based on the information Rove was using, he believed Mitt Romney still had a shot at winning.
According to a Nov. 8 article in the Christian Science Monitor, “Fox declared Ohio for Obama because its decision desk knew that the uncounted vote at that time in the evening was in areas with overwhelming Obama support. Rove didn’t know that . . .” Perhaps Rove needs to question the credibility of his sources.
What gives a source credibility? According to Wikipedia, traditional measures are trustworthiness and expertise, both of which have objective and subjective components. In other words, perspective matters. So it’s important to know the background of the source, not to mention your own viewpoint.
In Rove’s case, he probably relied too much on Conservative polling firms and news sources, thus missing key information about Democratic turnout and efforts.
I find this instructive as we prepare to vote. As I’ve written before, transparency is the key to good information, not objectivity, because everything has a perspective.
One way to determine the credibility of your sources -- know who pays for it. Follow the money.
For example, pay attention to who advertises during a news program. Is it a big energy, pharmaceutical or financial services company? Also know who owns the network or station. Is it independently owned or run by a wealthy corporate owner, ala Rupert Murdoch of FOX News?
If you don’t know anything about the owner, find out. Continuing to use FOX as an example, Murdoch is an Australian who owns and operates a worldwide media conglomerate. His media holdings, business interests and political activity shed light on the content he presents. Did you know in Britain, his son and other editors have been indicted for bribery and phone hacking, among other charges, which led to the closure of one of his major newspapers there?
Another consideration is format. Generally, broadcast news is too brief for in-depth information. It also increases the filtering, allowing producers to shape what you hear to their interests. Remember word, photo and video clip choices, as well as edits, can alter events and influence interpretation. Consider the difference: “Cardinals vanquished by Cubs” and “Cardinals lose to Cubs 4-6.”
So I read online newspapers and magazines, especially those with a print history and reputation for providing expert sources and investigative reporting properly researched and fact-checked: Salon, Christian Science Monitor, The New York Times and Washington Post, among others.
I also use independent reporting sites like Talking Points Memo to stay abreast of news. With web sites, I research how they are financed: via ad sales, donations or subscriptions. I find out if they are businesses or non-profits, and I look into their owners and leaders. When information is kept secret, I am suspicious. Secrecy may signal a hidden agenda.
And watch out for titles like, “Independent Journal Review.” A site can call itself anything, but if it doesn’t cite expert, named sources and openly list financers and leadership, it is not credible.
You can no longer accept that the news is just the news. So develop your skepticism and a list of fact-checking resources such as factcheck.org, fair.org, prwatch.org, or sunlightfoundation.com
These sites are run by non-profit organizations tracking and debunking misinformation in political ads, news reporting, corporate and government spin, respectively. Also use snopes.com to check chain e-mails.
If we expect to keep our democracy, we have to participate. So vote. But first, get informed about the issues.
Cherie Miner is a local parent, community volunteer, freelance writer and artist. In a former life, she was a corporate writer and public relations professional. Contact her at news@redoakexpress.com or on Facebook.