 |
| Research Paper via The Blue Diamond Gallery.CC BY-SA 3.0 |
What does each of these domain names imply? Which are credible?
.com= commercial enterprise
- shows something in a favorable light; monetary reasons
- might not give all the info on a product/subject of the site
- not always credible
.edu= college level educational institution
- generally credible; sometimes created by students and not looked on by school
.org= not-for-profit organization
- religious sites may voice a clear side on an issue* (my URL in particular)
- generally unbiased and credible
.gov= U.S. gov't (federal)
- credible; all run by the fed goverment
.biz= for businesses
- not necessarily credible, people think .com is perceived better
.name= for individuals for representation of their personal names, nicknames, other ID labels
- not very credible
.info= stands for information
- sometimes credible
.net= entity involved in net infrastructure; any type of site
- should be inspected, not always credible
Who is the author? Are their qualifications verifiable?
David Daleiden, from Davis, California, is the author of the article. He is a 27 year old journalist, pro-life activist, and project lead for The Center for Medical Progress (CMP), a non-profit organization, The group that consists of journalists who report on issues of ethics in the medical world. He has recently been in turmoil with the media over the evidence against him on his illegal activity while investigating Planned Parenthood.
Does the Web page provide info about when it was last updated? Is there any way of determining whether the material is out of date? What sort of links are on the page? Where do these links lead you? Are the links still working?
There is a copyright at the bottom of the web page that says 2016. The story was published on July 14th. There are links to their youtube channel to the video that is the subject of the story, a website leading to the info on their Human Capital Project, and the author's contact information. All links are consistent and active.
What is the text trying to accomplish? Is its purpose to inform, entertain, or persuade the reader? Does it appear to be promoting a commercial product, an idea, a philosophy, or some other way of seeing something?
The text's purpose is to inform, but mostly persuade. The story is about the surfacing of undercover footage showing Planned Parenthood's Senior Director of Medical Services, Dr. Deborah Nucatola having a discussion with "buyers from a human biologics company" appearing to be about the exchange of fetal organs. The buyers are actually actors who are apart of CMP's Human Capital Project, a project designed to expose and drag down Planned Parenthood. The article attempts to sway readers to target Planned Parenthood with them and hold them accountable for their apparent illegal actions.
Are there graphics? If so, what do they illustrate and why?
There is a large graphic right at the top of the web page which depicts Cecile Richards, President and CEO of Planned Parenthood sharing an image with an ambiguous dialogue to the left of it. (image can be found in the article) The dialogue seems to show a "buyer" talking to Richards. The story mentions that graphic, and it seems like the author could be taking things out of context to make PP look bad.
The other graphic on the page is a youtube video titled, "Planned Parenthood Uses Partial-Birth Abortions to Sell Baby Parts." Both graphics portray Planned Parenthood in a negative light.
Does the source seem biased, one-sided, incomplete, or erroneous? Who profits if viewers of the website believe its information to be true? Can you verify the information to be true? Can you verify the info with other online or print sources?
The source is most definitely biased and one-sided. Daleiden solely writes with one opinion in mind on the issue. If viewers believe what the website reports, David Daleiden and the CMP organization, and other people that are pro-life/pro-life activists will profit. The info has been discredited in many news sites, and the video that is the subject of the article was found to be heavily edited and deceptive.
However, there are many CMP supporters, even after the negative media coverage. Additionally, before reporters investigated CMP and Planned Parenthood, many people reacted upset and angry at Planned Parenthood due to the video release(s).
Does the source suggest avenues for further inquiry such as possible readings, research or links? Does it site reputable sources or note the extent to which claims in the text are connected to recognized authorities in the field?
The source invites readers to get more information on the Human Capital project, watch their other videos, and read more articles that aim at exposing Planned Parenthood. However, the webpage fails to provide any links unrelated to their organization that support their claims. Therefore, zero recognized authorities are present in this story.
No comments:
Post a Comment