In other words, seeing the news organization’s brand with the actual news content significantly affects whether readers/viewers will consider the the news content trustworthy (although some news organizations’ news content tends to considered more trustworthy than others in the generic unbranded case).
This should not be surprising. But it also means that if partisan news organizations refuse to run stories on a particular subject, the same side partisan readers/viewers may not trust any stories on the subject, because they all come from news organizations that those readers/viewers consider untrustworthy, even if the news content is completely true.
It also means that partisan readers/viewers may not realize what opposite partisans are reading/viewing/believing, regardless of how true any such news content is.
I’m so glad that a generation younger than mine invented the word “Duh.” It’s nice to have a word like this to use when reacting to reports such as this one.
Wasn’t it the Enquirer who broke the story about John Edwards (the politician, not the psychic) having impregnated some woman on the campaign trail? I liked Edwards as a candidate and my reaction initially was, RIGHT, it’s in the Enquirer, so it’s really true - not! Then, it turned out to be true. I am not saying to trust the Enquirer when it says that little blue men are coming from Venus (though, maybe they are), but on occasion, even the rags get it right.
What concerns me as much as anything else is the tone of the news reports. I try to be balanced and watch news shows I disagree with, but there’s only just so much Sean Hannity and his ilk that I can take without needing my barf bag. However, I don’t think that I am the average person out there who can be easily swayed by news reports. I studied journalism in college and originally planned to make a career in the field so I understand how it works. The sad and scary part is that it has become so much more partisan and divided and, thus, divisive, than I can ever recall in my life time and I am mid Baby Boom so I remember the Viet Nam War era reporting.
I encourage my children to read and watch news shows. They seem to rely a lot on Reddit, but they often come to me to ask about something and I will refer them to the Not failing NY Times and other sources.
TV news tends to freely mix news and editorials and opinionated guest speakers, in contrast to traditional print newspapers where the editorials and opinions are in a clearly marked section.
I spend a good part of my teaching time showing students how to look beyond pretty much any (news) story they read - often related to science and statistics. Some sources are credible and some simply aren’t. Those other sources might be right occasionally, but believing them just because they wrote something is a bad idea. If it’s intriguing, look into it further and stick to reputable sources.
When doing research it’s ok to start with Wikipedia, but only use it for leads - then look into those leads.
I agree that the Enquirer and its ilk are generally not credible sources and I don’t read them for my news. As I noted in my response, my first reaction was to disbelieve it, both because I admired Edwards and because it was in the Enquirer and not the NYT. When the story was taken up by the mainstream, credible media, it turned out to be true. I usually only see the the tabloids at the supermarket checkout, but I am always curious to see what type of topics are being reported on since they usually track things that are of general interest.
As to Wikipedia, you are 100% right. I am sure that, as a teacher, you have the practice I have seen with my children’s teachers of not permitting Wikipedia to be cited as a source in a research paper.
The Enquirer sometimes does have accurate info. What they do with it and how they spin it is another matter.
We now know for certain that the Enquirer has a strong political bias and has acted on it for years. As do the various other tabloidish magazines from the same source.
If the information in question had been about The Friend of the editor or a political ally, it would never have been published.
It is definitely not allowed to be cited as a source. We used to discourage even looking at it, but after my own lads went to college and were told by various researching profs to use it for leads as the newest info often shows up there first, we modified our position in school. Technically, we’re training for college (or trades), so if colleges are doing/suggesting it - so are we.
We also show how easy it is to modify Wiki and at least once in the past I was able to show how someone had modified a section (EPM in horses) to be 100% inaccurate - comparing Wiki to Cornell, Purdue, Penn St, etc. sources. I haven’t looked at that page recently to see if it’s been corrected or not. (EPM in horses comes mainly from opossums - Wiki said that had been proven false, so no need to kill opossums on horse farms - not so! I suspect the inaccurate change was made by an opossum lover.)
Use it for leads, but be careful and follow up those leads with reputable sources.
News credibility analysis requires more time than most people give to the news, unfortunately. Headlines are often misleading, but many people only read the headlines, especially when news is often consumed online and the full story requires a paid subscription.
A recent example of misleading headline: ABA Calls for FBI Investigation.
This was breathlessly reported on CNN and in the Washington Post and others.
Actually the headline should have read “ABA President Calls for FBI Investigation”. The Standing Committee for the Federal Judiciary was not consulted before the letter went out. So the headline looks like the entire organization was behind the call for an investigation when it was one person, which of course reflects the bias or ignorance of the headline writers…
