Is it A NICE source for this information?
A mnemonic to teach how to evaluate credibility of sources
Thank you!
Hi colleagues, thank you so much to those of you who joined the webinar about our Toolkit last week, and also the one about generative AI a week before that.
On both occasions, we received so many questions, and I am still getting some inquiries (mostly through direct messages on LinkedIn and e-mails).
We are planning to have a monthly, one-hour online gathering starting next month to share some teaching tips and tricks among educators and journalists.
If you’re interested, please wait for the details in the future newsletter.
All about sources
Meanwhile, this newsletter focuses on one of the questions raised in the webinar last week about teaching how to evaluate sources of the news and other information.
We use a method called A NICE source evaluation. It is not the most creative mnemonic, but it is easy to remember for many of us and our learners whose first or second language is not English.
The following tl;dr is the explainer we just posted on our toolkit. There are a few activities and assignments we created as well.
One of them is a roleplay for the learners to investigate the failed assassination attempt on Snow White as journalists who must weigh the credibility of each piece of information they gather from the sources.
I will be posting that as well in the coming weeks, along with other material. (For those of you who understand Japanese, though, you can check out the activity on the SmartNews Media Research Institute’s website, too).
A NICE source analysis
Unlike fictional novels and TV dramas, news stories are not created from the author's imagination. They are built on bits and pieces of information the reporters gather chiefly from the sources.
In news stories, the sources of information can be anything from eyewitnesses to governmental records to academic papers. While editorial decisions based on news values and angles might affect the coverage, essentially, news stories are only as credible as their sources.
Evaluating the source of each piece of information is a way for the news audience to scrutinise the building block of the news and look into its origin so that we can determine how credible and reliable the stories are.
Who is this person quoted in the story? What is the person's name, expertise, and relationship to this particular news event? Is this person providing facts or opinions? Does this person have anything to gain by talking to the media? What does the original document show? How was the data collected?
Asking questions like the above helps separate verified facts from opinions, differentiate experts' observations from laypeople's sentiments, and gauge the reliability of the information from each source.
Sources directly affect the news
Here's one example from Hong Kong that illustrates the importance of understanding the sources of information.
In 2013, the South China Morning Post published two articles about the newly opened Cruise Terminal at the time, following its launch.
One of the headlines read:
Passengers praise 'magnificent' Kai Tak Cruise Terminal on opening day
While the other said:
Cruise ship tourists let down by Hong Kong visit
The former article focused on the opening event, and the reporter mostly talked with people invited to attend the ceremony who praised the new facility.
The reporter for the latter mainly talked with ordinary passengers who expressed frustrations and disappointment about confusing signage, expensive taxi fees, and other things.
The two articles give the news audience very different impressions of the cruise terminal, and the difference comes from the sources.
So, how do we analyse the sources? The mnemonic A NICE reminds the learners of the source evaluation checklist they should go through.
A: Is this source Authoritative?
Authoritative sources are often more informed. They have access to data or experts' knowledge, for example. The information coming from them must be more reliable than the others.
A typical example is the street interviews we often see on TV news in many countries. Something happens, and people in the street are asked how they feel about it even though they don't have any inside knowledge or something new to add.
It's good for the news audience to know what others think in short soundbites, but they are not informed sources. Discerning news audiences shouldn't be influenced much by the information.
N: Is this source Named?
The news audience doesn't seem to think about the sources of information often enough -- who they are, what they do, and whether or not they have the knowledge and expertise to comment or give information.
Knowing the identity of the person or the organisation behind a piece of information helps to know what to make of it. And with the internet, finding out more about the sources is not difficult.
In Asia, we also see anonymous sources quoted in news reports frequently. It is easy to imagine a situation or a news topic that makes people nervous, and they will only talk to journalists if their identities are protected.
"Government sources close to the administration", "staff who requested anonymity because of XYZ", and similar phrases are commonly used. Anonymous sources may be less reliable, but it is sometimes the only way for journalists to get specific information.
The news audience should be aware of that (a separate explainer for anonymous sources will be added to the Toolkit soon).
I: Is this source Independent?
Independent sources have no conflict of interest concerning the information. Their assessment of the situation could be more well-rounded than those sources who have something to gain by disseminating the information.
It does not mean, however, that information from self-interested sources is untrustworthy. Sometimes, they know more about the topic than independent sources.
For example, the CEO of a company has a lot of insider knowledge about a new product and could give accurate information about the product's functionality.
On the other hand, an independent outsider like a financial analyst cannot discuss the product details with the same level of knowledge or may primarily provide speculations about its functionality.
Nonetheless, the company CEO has a reason to say all the positive things about the product and ignore the negatives. Meanwhile, Independent analysts can offer factual information even when it is against the company's interest and the new product.
A NICE source evaluation exercise does not encourage a clear-cut, either-or dichotomy. All sources have their merits and weaknesses. It is meant to help to weigh the validity of information within a spectrum.
C: Is the source Corroborated by other sources?
Of course, multiple sources are better than a single source. But what does that mean? The key idea here is corroboration.
Even when multiple people and documents give the same information, if the origin of that information is the same — say, a governmental press release — it is still single-source information.
For the sources to be considered multiple, other sources that support and verify the information must independently do so.
In the scenario above, a journalist can find experts or databases that have nothing to do with the government, substantiating or invalidating the information.
In other words, the question here is whether anybody or anything else has independently confirmed the information.
E: Does the source provide Evidence?
Lastly, we look at the nature of the information to analyse if it's fact-based information or something else.
Say, a nuclear scientist who says that her data clearly shows no immediate health risk after a nuclear accident is more reliable than another expert who says she thinks that there could be a risk, even though she hasn't seen the data yet.
Once again, the A NICE source evaluation is an attempt to weigh the validity of what's being presented in news stories discerningly.