Lesson Report:
**Title:**
Evaluating News Sources: Verification, Bias, and the Access–Agenda–Audience Framework
**Synopsis:**
This session advanced students’ work on a comparative media project by focusing on how to verify and evaluate news sources covering the same event from different perspectives. The class introduced a common analytical language—access, agenda, and audience—for judging trustworthiness, and students applied it first individually, then in groups, and finally in initial whole-class presentations. The broader objective was to move students from “gut feeling� opinions about media toward defensible, evidence‑based assessments of which sources are most trustworthy and why.
—
### Attendance
– **Number of students explicitly mentioned as absent:** 5
– Names marked “not hereâ€� during roll call: **Mukadas, Mehrona, Elmuras, Aydana, Aydina**
– **Ermin** was reported as “on her wayâ€�; her eventual arrival is not documented in the transcript.
—
### Topics Covered (Chronological, with activity structure)
#### 1. Framing the Course: “Situational Boardroom� and Discussion Focus
– The instructor reiterated the conceptual framing of the course:
– Students are to imagine class time as a **“situational boardroomâ€�** rather than a traditional lecture classroom.
– Emphasis on **discussion-based**, student-driven input rather than passive listening.
– Recalled the central guiding questions of the course when dealing with complex situations (news, conflicts, crises, etc.):
1. **What happened?**
2. **Why did it happen?**
3. **What’s next?**
– Clarified that the current phase of the course will concentrate on the **first question: “What happened?â€�**, with a strong focus on **source verification**.
#### 2. Reminder of Previous Assignment: Triangulating News Sources
– The instructor reminded students of the assignment from the previous class:
– Choose **one specific topic** (could be the same as what they discussed with partners earlier or another topic of interest).
– Find **three sources covering the same topic**:
1. **Western-backed source** (explicitly or largely **government‑funded by a Western government**)
– Examples mentioned: **BBC**, **NPR**, etc.
2. **Non-Western-backed source** (funded by a non-Western government)
– Examples: **Al Jazeera** (Qatar), **RT**, **CGTN/China Global**, etc.
3. **Independent / on-the-ground source**, ideally:
– A **social media** post/account (Twitter/X, Instagram, Telegram, etc.), ideally from a **person on the ground** or a relatively independent outlet.
– Clarifications:
– If students did not manage to find the third (independent/social media) source yet, this was acceptable for today; the class would discuss how to locate such sources in more detail later.
– At **minimum**, each student was expected to have **two** sources ready to analyze.
#### 3. Attendance & Group Formation
– Instructor took attendance orally and then:
– Asked students to **form new groups of three**, distinct from previous groupings, and physically sit close enough for conversation.
– Stated that much of the day’s work would happen **within these small groups**, building on the sources students had brought.
#### 4. Conceptual Mini-Lecture: What is Verification?
– The instructor foregrounded the term **“verificationâ€�**, asking students to articulate:
– What does it mean “to verify a sourceâ€�?
– Elicited ideas and then highlighted two key components:
1. **Truthfulness / Factuality**
– Are the data and claims in the article **factually accurate**?
– Do the described events **actually occur**, as far as we can know?
2. **Context & Motivation**
– Beyond “did it happen?â€�, we also need: **“Why is this information being given?â€�**
– Who created the content? Which organization distributed it?
– What **incentives** do these actors have to provide this information in this way?
– Do they want clicks/traffic?
– Are they trying to **make money**?
– Are they trying to **make you believe** something?
– Are they trying to **get you to do** something?
#### 5. Introducing Bias: Inevitable but Not Synonymous with Falsehood
– Discussion of the concept of **bias**:
– Students contributed definitions: incorporating one’s **own thoughts, feelings, and perspectives** into presentation of information.
– Instructor’s key points:
– **All sources are biased to some degree.**
– Any media—social, “legacy,â€� or otherwise—will reflect certain perspectives and interests.
– **Bias ≠automatically false.**
– A biased source can still present **accurate factual information**.
– Bias means the information is **framed**, not necessarily fabricated.
– The role of the critical consumer is to:
– Recognize that bias exists.
– Understand the **incentives** and **goals** behind the bias.
– Interpret factual claims in light of those incentives.
#### 6. Moving from Opinion to Defensible Judgments
– Instructor framed the **goal of the day’s work**:
– By the end of class, each student should be able to **select one of their sources as “most trustworthyâ€�** and explain **why** in a defensible way.
– Acknowledged that the purely academic answer is often “they’re all somewhere in the middle,â€� but:
– Students are being **challenged to take a position** and move beyond “I just like X better than Y.â€�
– Emphasis that justification must go beyond vague preferences (e.g., “I like BBC more than Al Jazeeraâ€�) to **structured reasoning**.
#### 7. Introducing the Analytical Framework: Access, Agenda, Audience
– The instructor introduced **three core analytic concepts**:
– **Access, Agenda, Audience** (the “three Asâ€�), to create a **shared vocabulary**.
– Detailed explanation of each:
**a) Access – How close is the source to the event?**
– Guiding questions:
– How many **layers of separation** are there between the writer and the event?
– Is the outlet:
– Reporting on an **official government report**?
– Basing its story on **eyewitness accounts**?
– Relying on **other media reports** as intermediaries?
– Does the article include:
– **Eyewitness quotes**?
– **Interviews** with people directly involved?
– **Citations of other reports** or officials?
– Overall: how direct is their **access to primary information**?
**b) Agenda – Why was this written? What do they want from the reader?**
– Guiding questions:
– What is the **purpose** of the article?
– To **inform** neutrally?
– To **entertain**?
– To **enrage** or emotionally stir?
– To **persuade** you of a particular stance?
– To drive **clicks/engagement** for revenue?
– **Who funds** this outlet or product?
– Government funding (Western vs non-Western)?
– Private corporate owners?
– NGOs or advocacy organizations?
– How does funding potentially shape:
– The **angle of coverage**?
– The **tone**?
– Which facts are emphasized or omitted?
**c) Audience – Who is this written for?**
– Guiding questions:
– Is it aimed at a **domestic audience** (citizens of country X)?
– An **international audience**?
– A more specific demographic or ideological community (e.g., Muslim readers, Western liberal audiences, business community)?
– How might the intended audience shape **language, examples, emotional cues**, or **assumed background knowledge**?
– Students instructed to **interrogate each of their sources** using these three dimensions.
#### 8. Individual Work: First Pass at Access/Agenda/Audience Analysis
– Students were given about **5 minutes** of individual work time:
– Take their 2–3 sources.
– Draft notes answering the **Access–Agenda–Audience** questions for each.
– Begin forming a **provisional judgment** about which source is **most trustworthy**.
– Instructor emphasized:
– A fully “defensibleâ€� position was not yet required, but students should at least have a **directional sense** of their stance.
– The class would soon move to **group discussion and critique** to refine these positions.
#### 9. Class Round-Robin: Topics and Source Types Students Chose
– The instructor did a quick **around-the-room check-in**:
– Each student stated:
– Their **topic**.
– The **outlets** they used (no need for full titles; just source names such as BBC, Al Jazeera, Guardian, etc.).
– Range of topics (approximate, based on transcript):
– **Iran protests and government repression**.
– **Israel–Palestine / Gaza conflict**, ceasefires, and alleged genocide or large-scale violence.
– **US–China relations** and related geopolitical tensions.
– **Status of ceasefires in the Israel–Palestine conflict**.
– **Treatment of certain minorities (e.g., possible reference to genocide) and complicity or inaction by international actors**.
– Other regional conflicts and foreign-policy topics (e.g., synagogue-related attacks, broader Palestinian conflict).
– Range of source types and instructor feedback:
– Some students successfully used:
– **BBC**, **Al Jazeera**, **China Global/CGTN**, **photojournalist Instagram accounts**, **YouTube political analysis channels (VisualPolitik)**, and **Bellingcat**.
– Several chose **private/NGO** outlets for their supposed “Western-backedâ€� slot:
– **The Guardian**, **CNN**, **Human Rights Watch**, **LinkedIn blogs**, etc.
– Instructor clarified:
– **Guardian**, **CNN**, many NGOs, and similar outlets are generally **not government-funded**; they are **private** and occupy a “messier middleâ€� we will analyze later.
– For **this stage** of the assignment, the instructor prefers a **clear contrast**:
– One source **explicitly funded by a Western government**.
– One **explicitly funded by a non-Western government**.
– One **independent/on-the-ground/social media**.
– Students may temporarily keep such sources for today’s work, **with the expectation** of possibly replacing them with more clearly government-funded outlets later.
– One student used **“Real News Networkâ€�**:
– Instructor flagged the name as **potentially suspect/marketing-driven** (“if you have to tell me it’s ‘Real News’…â€�), making it a good candidate for critical analysis under the verification framework.
#### 10. Group Activity: Ranking Trustworthiness and Critiquing Each Other
– In their **groups of three**, students were instructed to:
1. **Present to groupmates**:
– Their **topic**.
– Their **two or three sources**.
– For each source, a **brief assessment**:
– **Access** (1–5 trustworthiness scale).
– **Agenda** (purpose, funders, emotional tone).
– **Audience** (intended readership).
2. **Assign an overall trustworthiness rating (1–5)** for each source:
– **5 = highly trustworthy**;
– **1 = not very trustworthy**.
3. **Engage in constructive disagreement**:
– The **other two group members** should actively **push back**:
– Challenge overly generous or overly harsh ratings.
– Question assumptions about access, funding, and audience.
– Purpose:
– Shift assessments from “opinionâ€� toward **more rigorous, defensible analysis**.
– Practice using the **Access–Agenda–Audience vocabulary** in live discussion.
– Time allocation:
– Initial **10-minute group discussion**, with flexibility to extend as needed.
#### 11. Class Communication Infrastructure: Telegram Setup and Technical Hurdles
– Instructor addressed class communication tools:
– Requested that all students **install Telegram** if they had not already.
– Confirmed:
– Email remains for **official communication**, but:
– Telegram will be the primary tool for **in-class sharing** (e.g., sending links from laptops/phones to the screen quickly).
– Process:
– Students asked to:
– Join the **class Telegram group** via a **QR code**.
– **Post the links** to each of their 2–3 articles in the group.
– One student without Telegram (for documentation reasons—passport requirement) was allowed to **email links to the instructor**, who then forwarded them to the group.
– Technical issues:
– The classroom computer’s browser did **not support Telegram Web**, forcing the instructor to:
– Abandon the originally planned quick projection via Telegram.
– Instead, **email the article links to themselves** and then use **Pastebin** as a workaround to display them on screen.
– This led to some delay and highlighted the need for a more robust technical workflow in future classes.
#### 12. Whole-Class Analysis 1: Iran Protests – BBC vs. Al Jazeera
– **Student presenter (Adam)** analyzed two articles on protests in Iran:
**a) BBC article: “More than 2,000 people reported killed in the Iran protests� (title paraphrased)**
– **Access:**
– Author not physically in Iran, but:
– Used **verified videos** based on **geolocation**.
– Included **eyewitness accounts** from across the country.
– Clear attempt to **map protests** via confirmed locations.
– **Evidence visualization:**
– Article contained a **map** with dots indicating confirmed protest locations:
– Each dot corresponded to a video with verified **GPS coordinates** and timestamps.
– **Agenda:**
– Primarily to **inform** about:
– The **scale and locations** of protests.
– The **reported death toll**.
– Includes **quotes** from:
– Eyewitnesses.
– Iranian government officials.
– Balanced presentation of **state claims vs. observed ground facts**.
– **Audience:**
– Broad **Western/international audience**, not just British.
**b) Al Jazeera article: “Iran’s protests differ this time around� (title paraphrased)**
– **Access:**
– Limited direct eyewitness material.
– Reliance on:
– **Experts** (e.g., University of Cambridge).
– **Iranian government statements**.
– Missing the extensive geolocated on-the-ground visual evidence present in BBC.
– **Agenda:**
– Analyze **how and why this wave of protests is different**:
– Discussed Iranian government weakness.
– Referenced **regional context** (e.g., US/Israel actions).
– Considered Iran’s **changed alliances** (e.g., reduced Russian support).
– More **interpretive/analytical** than strictly evidentiary.
– **Audience:**
– Likely more **regional (Middle Eastern / Islamic world)**, though still global.
– Technical concept explained: **Geolocation & metadata**
– At instructor’s prompting, Adam explained:
– Modern devices embed **metadata** in photos/videos:
– **Time & date**.
– Device details (e.g., camera aperture).
– **GPS coordinates**, when enabled.
– Analysts can confirm where and when a video was taken by reading this metadata and cross-checking visual landmarks.
– Instructor’s commentary:
– Highlighted this as a **preview** of future course topics on digital verification.
– Emphasized:
– **Geolocation is powerful evidence**, but:
– Students must still **evaluate claims carefully** and not simply trust a source’s assertion that it has “verifiedâ€� material.
– Confidence in reporting must be **justified**, not taken at face value.
– Asked Adam which source he found more trustworthy:
– Adam favored **BBC** based on stronger on-the-ground evidence and verification tools.
#### 13. Whole-Class Analysis 2: Gaza Ceasefire Coverage – BBC, Al Jazeera Labs, and an Instagram Photojournalist
– **Second student (name not clearly captured)** presented three sources on **Israel–Gaza ceasefire violations**.
**a) BBC article: Israeli airstrikes and broken ceasefire**
– **Access:**
– Reporter based in **Jerusalem** (not Gaza but geographically closer than many other centers).
– Article quoted:
– **Gaza Civil Defense Agency**.
– **Military/spokespersons** (likely Israeli side).
– It was not always clear whether quotes came from **direct interviews** or from **official press statements**, but multiple institutions were cited.
– **Agenda:**
– Nominally to **inform** about:
– The fact that **airstrikes occurred**.
– That **eight people were killed** (in this specific piece).
– That these events **followed or affected a ceasefire**.
– The student noted:
– While the headline emphasizes **Israeli responsibility** for breaking the ceasefire, the article also includes information about **Hamas’s refusal to disarm** and broader conflict dynamics, potentially diluting the immediate ceasefire focus.
– **Audience:**
– Broad **Western/international readership**, mostly outside the region.
**b) Al Jazeera Labs article: “How many times has Israel violated the Gaza ceasefire? Here are the numbers� (title paraphrased)**
– **Access:**
– Authored by **“Al Jazeera Labsâ€�**, not an identifiable individual journalist.
– Likely compiled from:
– **Press conferences** (e.g., quoting Donald Trump).
– **Palestinian Ministry of Health** statistics.
– The exact geospatial proximity of the newsroom is unclear (probably **Qatar**).
– **Agenda:**
– Explicitly framed as a **quantitative denouncement**:
– Counting and emphasizing **Israeli violations** of the ceasefire.
– Much of the content focuses on **criticizing Israel**, consistent with topic framing.
– Student observed that tone is more **advocacy-like**, less balanced.
– Outlet is **Qatari‑funded**, which shapes political perspective.
– **Audience:**
– Likely aimed at **Middle Eastern / Muslim audiences**, while still accessible to the global public.
– Emotional salience and framing appear tuned to those sympathetic to the Palestinian cause.
**c) Instagram photojournalist account: On-the-ground image of an injured child in Gaza**
– **Access:**
– Very high: the photographer is working **on the ground in Gaza**.
– Photo showed a **child with burn marks** (image partially obscured during projection, but context described).
– **Agenda:**
– To show **individual human impact** of the ceasefire violations:
– Personalized narrative: a **single injured child** instead of abstract casualty numbers.
– The student inferred that the intention is to **evoke empathy and shock**, rather than to present balanced policy analysis.
– Funding likely through:
– The journalist themselves.
– Possibly donations, commissions, or freelance arrangements, but not clearly a government.
– **Audience:**
– Broad **global audience**, via Instagram.
– Designed for **visual impact** in social media feeds.
– Student’s trust assessment:
– Considered the **photojournalist’s material the most trustworthy** for showing that **real harm is occurring**, because it is a direct, minimally mediated record.
– Acknowledged it is **limited and one-sided**:
– It shows only one aspect (Palestinian suffering) and not the entirety of conflict dynamics.
– Among the two major outlets, the student found **BBC slightly more credible** in this specific comparison due to:
– More diverse sourcing.
– Some effort to present **multiple sides**.
– Instructor closed this part by indicating:
– Many students still needed to present; this analytic work would **continue next session**.
– The class is gradually shifting from **subjective impressions** to more **methodical evaluations**.
#### 14. Closing Instructions and Homework Context (for record)
– Instructor reiterated expectations for upcoming classes:
– By **next Tuesday**:
– Students who did not present today will **present their source analyses** using the Access–Agenda–Audience framework.
– Students should ensure they have the **full set of 3 sources** where possible (Western-government‑funded, non‑Western‑government‑funded, and independent/social-media/on‑the‑ground).
– Regarding **social media usage for data collection**:
– Students who do **not** have **Telegram, Instagram, Twitter/X** were advised to:
– **Create accounts**, ideally dedicated to **news/research use**, separate from personal accounts if preferred.
– If students have a **principled objection** to using these platforms:
– They should **speak with the instructor** to arrange alternative methods of accessing on‑the‑ground sources.
– Students were reminded to **join the course** (likely on the institution’s course system) if they had not done so.
#### 15. After-Class Advising: Course Load and 100-Level Course Concerns
– After dismissal, a student asked about:
– Taking **two art classes** in one semester (one possibly being this course, or another humanities course).
– Concerns:
– Course load (around **30 credits plus a 9‑credit internship**, though these numbers were a bit muddled).
– Whether another **100-level art course** would “countâ€� in their academic plan or just be an elective.
– Instructor’s advice:
– On **credit requirements**:
– Noted that university systems often have **limits on the number of 100-level credits** that count toward the degree; this needs to be checked.
– On **course load**:
– Acknowledged that a 30+ credit semester is **heavy**, especially with intensive courses.
– Left the decision to the student’s **self-assessment of capacity**.
– On process:
– Advised the student to:
– **Talk to the professor** of the desired art course first (class may be full; the prof’s consent is necessary).
– Only then, if admitted, reconsider dropping/replacing this course.
– Emphasized that if the other professor does **not** allow enrollment, the student should **remain with the current schedule**.
—
### Actionable Items (for Instructor), Organized by Urgency
#### High Priority – Before Next Class
– **Clarify and reinforce source-type requirements.**
– Explicitly communicate (e.g., via LMS announcement or in-class reminder) that:
– “Western-backedâ€� and “non-Western-backedâ€� should mean **state-funded outlets**, not merely Western or non-Western private outlets.
– Encourage students currently using **The Guardian, CNN, Human Rights Watch, LinkedIn blogs, etc.** as “government-backedâ€� to **locate clearer state-funded analogs** where feasible (BBC, DW, Voice of America, RT, CGTN, Al Jazeera, etc.).
– **Plan and schedule remaining student presentations.**
– Note which students did **not** present their sources today and plan to:
– Start next session with their **Access–Agenda–Audience presentations**.
– Allocate enough time for **group and whole-class critique**.
– **Document the “Access, Agenda, Audienceâ€� framework in writing.**
– Upload a concise handout/slide to the course page summarizing:
– Definitions.
– Key questions for each dimension.
– Example indicators (e.g., direct eyewitness quotes vs. second-hand reports).
– **Resolve immediate technical workflow for in-class article projection.**
– Before next session, confirm:
– Whether the classroom computer can use a **supported browser** for Telegram Web or **Telegram Desktop**.
– If not, establish a **default alternative** (e.g., students email links in advance; instructor compiles into a single PDF or document).
– This will reduce in-class downtime caused by ad-hoc workarounds (Pastebin, self‑emailing, etc.).
#### Medium Priority – Next 1–2 Weeks
– **Monitor and support students in obtaining on-the-ground / independent sources.**
– Be prepared to:
– Provide **examples** of credible independent or social-media sources (e.g., reputable photojournalists, Bellingcat, etc.).
– Offer guidance on **how to evaluate** these less formal outlets using Access–Agenda–Audience and additional verification techniques (e.g., geolocation, cross-referencing).
– **Begin planning a dedicated mini‑lesson on digital verification tools.**
– Based on Adam’s example, consider a future class segment on:
– **Metadata** in images/videos.
– **Geolocation practices** (landmark matching, map tools).
– How these methods are used by investigative outfits (e.g., Bellingcat).
#### Low Priority / Ongoing
– **Follow up with advising-related student query.**
– If appropriate, check in with the student who asked about:
– Taking a second art/100-level course.
– Possibly dropping this course.
– Confirm:
– Whether they spoke with the other professor.
– Whether there are **100-level credit caps** they should be aware of (possibly coordinate with academic advising).
– **Develop an alternative workflow for students avoiding social media on principle.**
– For any student who informs you of principled objections to Telegram/Twitter/Instagram:
– Prepare an **alternative path** (e.g., working with archived materials, NGO reports, or curated public datasets) that still allows engagement with **on-the-ground perspectives** without direct platform use.
– **Refine communication norms around bias and trust assessment.**
– Continue modeling in class how to:
– Distinguish **bias** from **factual reliability**.
– Use respectful language when critiquing sources students have chosen (especially politically sensitive ones).
– Encourage students to build **evidence-based arguments** rather than relying on outlet reputations alone.
—
This report should help you reconstruct the session’s flow, the analytical tools introduced (Access–Agenda–Audience), the types of sources and topics students are working with, and the logistical and pedagogical follow-ups to prioritize for upcoming classes.
Homework Instructions:
ASSIGNMENT #1: Set up social media accounts for source verification and data collection
You will prepare the tools you need to collect on-the-ground sources by ensuring you have access to key social media platforms that we will use for finding eyewitness and independent reporting on your chosen topic. This supports our ongoing work on verification (“what happened?�) and will be central to future classes where we dig into social media content.
Instructions:
1. Ensure you have access to the following platforms on at least one device you can bring or access for class work:
1.1. Telegram
1.2. Instagram
1.3. Twitter (X)
2. If you do not already have an account on one or more of these platforms:
2.1. Create a new account for each missing platform.
2.2. When choosing usernames and profile details, you may use a “research-only� identity (it does not need to be tied to your full real name, as long as you can remember and access it in class).
2.3. Make sure you can log in successfully and that the app/website works on your device.
3. If you already have personal accounts on these platforms:
3.1. Consider creating a separate, research-focused account for this course, as the instructor suggested.
– The purpose is to keep your news and research activity separate from your personal social media use.
– A separate account can help avoid personal algorithmic bias and clutter from non-course content.
3.2. If you decide to keep using only your existing personal account, make sure you are comfortable using it in class to view and share public content related to your topic.
4. Once your accounts are ready:
4.1. Log into each platform and familiarize yourself briefly with the search function (hashtags, keywords, location tags, channels, etc.).
4.2. Keep in mind that in upcoming classes we will be using these tools to:
– Find “on-the-groundâ€� eyewitness accounts (e.g., posts, photos, videos from individuals at the scene).
– Identify independent or less-institutional sources related to your chosen topic.
5. If you have a principled reason not to join any of these platforms:
5.1. Email the instructor before the next class.
5.2. Briefly explain which platform(s) you are avoiding and why.
5.3. Work with the instructor to agree on an alternative method of accessing comparable information (for example, viewing content via web without creating an account, or using alternative databases/sites).
6. Bring a device (phone, tablet, or laptop) to the next class, logged into these accounts if possible, so you are ready to use them for source-finding activities.
ASSIGNMENT #2: Prepare to present and defend your most trustworthy source
You will consolidate the work you began in class with your 2–3 articles on a single topic (Western-backed source, non-Western-backed source, and, if possible, an independent/on-the-ground source). Your goal is to move from a vague opinion (“I like BBC more than Al Jazeera�) to a defensible, analytical position using the shared language of access, agenda, and audience. Next class, if you did not present this time, you will be expected to “be ready to talk� and explain your evaluation to the group.
Instructions:
1. Gather your sources:
1.1. Locate the same 2–3 articles you brought to this class:
– One from a Western-backed outlet (funded by a Western government, such as BBC, etc.).
– One from a non-Western-backed outlet (e.g., Al Jazeera, RT, China Global, etc.).
– If you have it, one independent / social media / on-the-ground source (e.g., a photojournalist’s Instagram, a Telegram channel, a personal account on Twitter/X, etc.).
1.2. Make sure you have working links or saved copies you can access easily in class.
2. Re-read each article carefully, taking notes:
2.1. As you read, jot down brief notes for each of the three concepts we used in class:
– Access: How close is the writer to the actual events?
– Agenda: Why is this being written or posted? What does it “wantâ€� from you? Who funds it?
– Audience: Who is it written for (domestic vs. international, specific political/identity group, etc.)?
2.2. Pay attention to specific evidence you can point to, such as:
– Use of eyewitnesses or experts.
– Use of geolocation or verifiable data (as we discussed with examples like geotagged protest videos).
– Tone of the language (informing, denouncing, persuading, enraging, entertaining).
– Any clear indications of funding, government affiliation, or organizational backing.
3. For each source, write short, bullet-point answers under each heading:
3.1. Access
– How did the author get their information (eyewitnesses, official reports, social media videos, wire services, etc.)?
– How many “layers of separationâ€� seem to exist between the writer and the actual event?
3.2. Agenda
– What seems to be the primary purpose: inform, persuade, justify, criticize, entertain, mobilize, etc.?
– What incentives might the organization have (e.g., government-funded, audience clicks, political stance)?
– Is there language that signals a particular stance (e.g., strong denouncements vs. careful neutrality)?
3.3. Audience
– Who is the likely primary audience (country/region, political group, language community, etc.)?
– How might that intended audience affect the way the story is framed or what is emphasized/omitted?
4. Assign a trustworthiness rating to each source:
4.1. Using the 1–5 scale you used in your group (1 = not very trustworthy, 5 = highly trustworthy), assign a number to each article.
4.2. Next to each rating, write 2–3 concrete reasons that justify the number you chose, based on access, agenda, and audience.
4.3. Be specific: refer to details such as the presence/absence of verifiable evidence, explicit acknowledgements of uncertainty (“we cannot verify…�) versus overconfident claims, funding sources, etc.
5. Decide which of your sources you consider the most trustworthy overall:
5.1. Compare your three ratings and the justifications you wrote.
5.2. Choose one article or source that you are prepared to argue is more trustworthy than the others.
5.3. Write a short paragraph (5–8 sentences) explaining:
– Which source you picked.
– How its access, agenda, and audience compare to the others.
– Why, despite knowing that “everything is biased,â€� this source is the one you find most defensible.
6. Anticipate criticism and prepare responses:
6.1. Based on your in-class group discussion, think about how classmates might push back on your choice (e.g., “But this outlet is funded by X government,� “This is clearly written to support Y side,� “This independent source only shows one person’s experience,� etc.).
6.2. For at least two likely objections, write a sentence or two on how you would respond using the same analytical language (access, agenda, audience) rather than simply saying “I disagree.�
6.3. Be ready to explain why you still stand by your ranking even after considering those objections.
7. Prepare a 2–3 minute oral explanation for class:
7.1. Outline, in order, what you will say:
– Briefly state your topic and list your 2–3 sources (just outlet names, e.g., “BBC, Al Jazeera, and an Instagram photojournalist in Gazaâ€�).
– Summarize, in 1–2 sentences each, how you evaluated access, agenda, and audience for them.
– Clearly state which source you consider most trustworthy and why.
7.2. Practice (even briefly) so that you can speak smoothly without reading word-for-word.
7.3. Bring your notes to class so you can refer to them during discussion if needed.
8. Come to the next class “ready to talk�:
8.1. Bring your device or printed copies of your sources.
8.2. Be prepared to present your evaluation if you did not get a chance this session, and to actively question and respond to your classmates’ evaluations.
8.3. Remember that the goal is not to prove a source is perfectly objective, but to show you can argue clearly and defensibly about *why* you trust one source more than another using our shared analytical framework.
ASSIGNMENT #3: Confirm your enrollment in the course site
You will ensure that you are properly enrolled in the course’s online space so you can access materials, instructions, and future assignments without delay.
Instructions:
1. Log into the university’s course platform (eCourse/Moodle).
2. Locate this course in your dashboard or by searching the course code/title.
3. Confirm that:
3.1. The course appears in your list of current courses.
3.2. You can open the course page and see posted materials (e.g., syllabus, announcements, assignment instructions like this one).
4. If you do **not** see the course listed or cannot access the materials:
4.1. Try enrolling manually if self-enrollment is enabled (using the enrollment key if one was provided in class).
4.2. If that does not work, email the instructor promptly, stating:
– Your full name and ID.
– The problem you are encountering (e.g., “Course not visible on my account,â€� “Enrollment key not workingâ€�).
5. Once you confirm you are enrolled and can access the course page, check that you can also see any links or references mentioned in class (e.g., instructions, future reading lists).