2 Analyzing Content

Is the source Credible, Current, and is the information Concrete? This is classic journalism training. We first assess if a source is credible. Now, before you assume that the source is credible, look up the word “credible” in a standard dictionary. You may be surprised. We often assume credible is trustworthy, but that is indeed not the definition. The definition is believable. How can we determine if a source is trustworthy and not just credible? Once you have the article, search for the author’s name or the publications name. Reviews of these will give you some insight. Current is another matter. How current does information have to be to be useful? Historical information will not be recent, but is it still usable? However, the most recent information is often lacking reflection. News as entertainment channels currently report the most recent information, but it is often incomplete and sometimes unverified.  The test for current is can the event or topic be examined in its entirety from beginning to end. Similarly, if there is contrary content, this is a good indication that the information is complete, considered, and relatively balanced. Concrete is the most difficult to determine. This involves examining the evidence to determine if it is hypothetical or data-driven. Asking questions about the validity and origin of data or evidence is essential.

Next, highlight the evidence provided. Anything that has a source attached in a citation is evidence. Is the bulk of that evidence hypothetical or data-driven? After highlighting the evidence, use a different colour highlighter and highlight the topic sentence for each paragraph. This allows the evidence to be separated from the assertion. Does the evidence support the assertion? This also reveals the structural strategy of the article. If the topic sentence is first, the paragraph is deductive, beginning with a large assertion and being supported by smaller pieces of evidence. If the topic sentence concludes a paragraph, this is inductive. The inductive strategy presents evidence with a “therefore” kind of conclusion to the paragraph.

Finally, Toulmin’s diagramming of arguments provides unique insight into the claim (assertion), grounds (criteria), and backing (evidence) involved in the argument. In class, I use the example of pets. I assert that dogs are the best pets (claim). I suggest that because dogs are smart, loyal, loving, and easily trained they make the best pets (grounds). I then provide evidence such as service dogs and search and rescue dogs. I then point out that there are leaps in this argument. It is assumed that the grounds (criteria to prove the argument) are accepted by everyone. I point out that dogs are also needy. They have to be let out regularly, whereas cats can be on their own more often than dogs. Snakes can be left for days as they eat less frequently, and they do not require being let outside. The problem with the argument is that the criteria are assumed to be common to everyone.