Reading Laterally

 

Today, I am discussing what all “good fact checkers” do before trusting a certain website or source. It’s called Reading Literally, and essentially I am going to dig deeper into the website at hand to really determine how trustworthy the site is. When I’m working with a new site whether fact-checking or in any other research, the most important thing is to ensure that you are pulling information from a credible, accurate source. When approaching a new website, it is the perfect time to practice reading laterally. The first step in reading laterally is to not spend much time on the site itself.

“they {fact-checkers} get off the page and see what other authorities have said about the site. They open up many tabs in their browser, piecing together different bits of information from across the web to get a better picture of this site where they’ve landed. Many of the questions they ask are the same as the vertical readers scrolling up and down the pages of the source they are evaluating. But unlike those readers, they realize that the truth is more likely to be found in the network of links to (and commentaries about) the site than in the site itself”.

Web Literacy for Student Fact-Checkers, Michael A. Caulfield

So, I decided to start with HuffPost, as it is a source that I use quite often whether for fact-checking or even when I’m looking for some reliable content! I thought it would be a good idea to find out just how reliable the Huffing Post is. For starters, I went over to Wikipedia, to find some background information about the HuffPost. (Keep in mind I know have about 5 tabs open now including the HuffPost, Wikipedia, Caulfield’s book, giphy.com, and some recipes for a yellow cake baked oatmeal but that’s neither here nor there). Wikipedia gives a pretty detail oriented explanation about the history of HuffPost and how the sources is a primarily liberal news and opinon blog. Wikipedia then goes on to discuss the different local and international editions of the HuffPost and then I saw the link labor disputes so I was sure that would spark some interest. Turns out in 2011, a magazine publisher known as Visual Art Source, had been cross-posting material from its website. They decided to go on strike against The Huffington Post and the National Writers Union and the Newspaper Guild decided to join and endorse the HuffPost, which dropped the boycott. So just by doing a little research on Wikipedia, I was able to find out that The Huffington Post has had boycotts pressed against them, but that they are also supported by two major writing unions. I also found from Wikipedia that again in 2011, the HuffPost was hit with a multimillion-dollar lawsuit due to thousands of uncompensated bloggers. The lawsuit was dismissed due to prejudice in March 2012, stating that the bloggers had volunteered their services, their compensation would include being published. So perhaps 2011-2012 was just a rough year for the HuffPost but nonetheless they have some strong support behind them proving them to be a well-suited source.

Now, the HuffPost provides a long list of all their different editors for the site, however it’s really essential to gain information about the source at hand from other websites and resources. Simply because the site isn’t going to discredit itself in any way, (essentially it’s not going to expose itself!) so that’s why we need to hear what other people have to say! I’m interested in the editors because that’s really who we turn to when deciding whether or not a fact or topic is reliable or not. The editors should follow a process of checking and revising while editing their work because it’s necessary for credibility purposes. Although the HuffPost provided a lengthy list of their editorial staff, I decided to do some quick research about their publication.

The Huffington Post has many bloggers, from politicians and celebrities to academic and and professional experts who contribute on a wide range of topics. So finding one specific editor or publisher is pretty much impossible. This comes back to another idea brought up in Caulfield’s book that discusses blogs or websites that are opinion based.

“An opinion column that gets a fact or two wrong won’t cause its author much trouble, whereas an article in a newspaper that gets facts wrong may damage the reputation of the reporter. On the far ends of the spectrum, a single bad or retracted article by a scientist can ruin a career, whereas an advocacy blog site can twist facts daily with no consequences”.

Since we can’t exactly blame someone for all of the HuffPost’s articles and posts, I thought it would be interesting to research someone who as posted for the HuffPost. I found a web source titled “Erin’s Inside Job”, where a girl named Erin discusses getting published with the Huffington Post. Erin explained that when submitting her topic to HuffPost, she was certain to include three things; a e-mail pitch, the article itself, and a short biography and headshot. In the end, Erin explains…

“The person that I actually heard back from was Arianna Huffington {editor-in-chief of HuffPost} herself. After I emailed all of the appropriate editors, I took a long shot and emailed it to her as well. I figured the worst that could happen is that I didn’t hear back…She said that she was forwarding my information to one of her editors and I would receive more information shortly. Soon after that I received an invitation to The Huffington Post and was supplied blogging credentials”.

Although Erin’s description of her process wasn’t exactly detailed or note-worthy, I feel like it does give an inside look as to how the HuffPost does pay attention to the work they receive. As the editor-in-chief {Arianna Huffington} explained that she would be passing on the information to one of the many editors, I thought of this as a great big “green light” because it does prove that the HuffPost takes action in editing the work they receive and they don’t just post any submission that comes their way.