Sources...Bias...Decision Making: A Reader's International Moral Imperative

 Well. This might make some folks mad. But it's not political even though both sources come from opposite sides of the political arena. 

But it's absolutely the kind of thing we need to be paying attention to. 

The obvious: no one wants Monkey Pox. Ew. 

Here's Source One: https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2024/08/21/w-h-o-declares-monkeypox-a-global-crisis-heres-whats-really-going-on/ 

Here's Source Two: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/14/health/mpox-who-emergency-africa.html

Questions to ask up front: 

1. What kinds of things does the site discuss? 
2. Who is behind or writing the article? 
3. What is their general stance on ideas? 
4. Who is sponsoring the content? How is the sponsor benefitting from the article or association with the author? 
   

And questions to ask about the format: 

1. Examine the title for loaded words and bias: Note the subtext after the colon in the title of the first article "Here's What's Really Going On." It hints at public deception at the worst and public ignorance at the least. 
2. Examine sponsorship and ad placements: The first article is sponsored by "The Wellness Company." The video story thumbnail begins with a picture of the kit the company sells. Toward the end of the article, there is a large colored ad about the kit. The last paragraphs of the article discuss how to "thwart the plan" (to make you sick?) and that you are a fool if "hope" is your "strategy." Links are then given to provide a better strategy by buying the wellness kid. And at the end, the article concludes with a linked call to action to purchase the kit. Calls to action = persuasion. Commercials. 
3. Examine citations and references: There are no citations or references to where we can find the data reported in the article. Note, there are hyperlinks that take you to a paper. And the steps for evaluating the source are critical here as well. Note that citations and references must also be validated for reliability, validity, and credibility. Note that the executive summary clipped into the article is on page 8 of the brief. But also note the end of pages 2 and 5. And note the language in the beginning of the article...it's an argumentative text - which changes how you read it. It's not purely informational. 
4. Examine how other titles are referenced and when they change. The way the text is presented, the following text seems that it came from the NYT. But the article has only copied the font and headline with the introduction to the article and followed with their own text. An honest representation would have made this a different kind of graphic feature like a picture with a caption.  The way it appears is misleading and an example of poor scholarship and attribution. 
   
5. Examine links and referenced texts. Seek the original source. Note that the NTI paper references a "fictional scenario" that "unfolded in a series of short news videos that participants reacted to," (page 10). Note who the participants were on page nine. The article is about a roundtable discussions on a fictional scenario of a monkeypox outbreak and the suggestions for dealing with such an issue. Their findings aren't necessarily bad...but the way the data is used doesn't exactly match the original purpose. 
6. Note the stuff at the bottom about how comments are used. Facebook. Algorithms driving folks to the site = more hype and more clicks for the advertiser. (I'm being biased here because I'm irritated.) 

When we look at the NYT article...it's information that has quite a different stance and information than the first source. The experts mentioned are different and have different purposes. Note that links go directly to the CDC and the WHO, but also links to other NYT articles and Reuters. 

All of the same steps for evaluating the source and genre need to be followed for the NYT article. But dang, guys...there's a lot to notice here about genre features, bias, author's purpose, rhetoric, logical fallacies...it's not just English Language Arts. Critical reading is a moral and international imperative.