Lesson Report:
**Title: Evaluating News Sources and Drafting Neutral Situation Reports**
In this session, students practiced identifying and evaluating sources within news articles and deepened their understanding of what counts as a primary source and how close different kinds of evidence are to it. They then reviewed and edited their own fact timelines for bias and were introduced to a structured method for turning those timelines into a neutral, professional situation-report paragraph that synthesizes multiple sources without inserting personal opinion.
—
### Attendance
– **Number of students mentioned absent at roll call:** 3
– Absent: **Mukhadas, Chiyo, Mechrona**
– **Late arrivals / partial attendance noted:**
– **Altanai** – initially marked absent; arrived late and joined the activity.
– **Harmeen** – reported she would be very late; unclear from transcript whether she arrived before class ended.
– **Abinah** – was present “at some point and then disappearedâ€� earlier; not confirmed present for this class period’s work.
—
### Topics Covered (Chronological, with Activity/Topic Headers)
#### 1. Opening, Objectives, and Context
– Instructor briefly apologized for a hoarse voice and moved quickly to outlining goals for the session.
– **Stated goals for the day:**
1. Ensure everyone **clearly understands what is meant by “primary source�** and how to find/recognize one in practice.
2. Practice **distinguishing between different sources inside a single article** (who is actually providing the information vs. who is just relaying it).
3. Take a **critical look at the “facts� students have collected** for their situation reports.
4. If time allowed, **begin synthesizing a strong, neutral paragraph** for a situation report—learning to write in professional, non-opinionated terms.
– This situates the class in an ongoing project: students have already:
– Chosen topics and collected articles.
– Extracted factual details.
– Built a timeline of events.
– Begun thinking about agreement/disagreement between sources.
#### 2. Administrative: Attendance and Access Issues
– Instructor took roll verbally, confirming who was present or absent (see above).
– **Telegram and Google Doc access:**
– Instructor intended to use a Google Doc listing all chosen articles.
– Confirmed that most students could see old posts in the Telegram group where articles were originally shared.
– For those who could not see older posts, instructor:
– Shared the Google Doc link again in the Telegram group.
– Mentioned willingness to email the document where necessary.
– **AUCA email / IT issues:**
– Some students reported difficulty accessing their AUCA mail accounts (“kind of mail account which no existsâ€�).
– Instructor strongly recommended they visit the **IT/insurance center** to resolve email access:
– Emphasized that professors heavily rely on email.
– Warned that students could miss important information without functioning accounts.
#### 3. Activity 1 – Identifying Sources Within News Articles
**Task setup**
– Students were instructed to:
– Go into the **Telegram group**.
– **Choose one article that was *not* their own** and ideally **not on their chosen topic** (“something freshâ€�).
– Once they had chosen an article, they were to:
– **Make a list of sources within that article**, treating it like a pseudo-bibliography.
– For each fact or claim, note:
– **Who is the immediate source?**
– A general?
– A government official?
– An eyewitness on the ground?
– An anonymous or unspecified source?
– Another news outlet (e.g., Reuters)?
– Note especially when the source is:
– Clearly identified vs.
– Left “in the airâ€�/undetermined.
– They could optionally click through to the **other news outlet** (e.g., Reuters) to see who *that* outlet quoted, but this was not required due to time constraints.
– Late-arriving students (e.g., Altanai) were brought up to speed:
– Find an article from Telegram that was not theirs and on a different topic.
– List the facts stated and, crucially, the **sources of those facts**.
**Whole-class examples and discussion**
– Instructor logged into the classroom computer and projected selected student articles, putting volunteers “on the spotâ€� to explain what they found.
1. **Example 1 – Greenland article (CGTN / Reuters / KNR)**
– Elena presented an article (likely from CGTN) about politics in Greenland.
– Identified sources:
– **Photo credit**: Reuters (image of the Greenland flag).
– **Main reportage**: Reuters again, as the underlying wire service.
– **Greenlandic broadcaster KNR**:
– Cited as a source but did not identify its own sources.
– The article paraphrased KNR’s claims about who would lead the new government and coalition details.
– **Named political figure Nielsen**:
– Quoted urging the party to set aside disagreements.
– Elena was unsure whether to treat Nielsen as a separate “sourceâ€� category or just part of the reporting.
– Instructor’s analysis:
– Concluded that the smaller outlet likely **reorganized and restated a Reuters report**, possibly adding references to KNR.
– Raised a research question:
– In the **original Reuters piece**, did Reuters already cite KNR, or was KNR introduced only editorially by CGTN?
– Used this to illustrate a common pattern:
– **Small outlets often repurpose larger agencies’ articles** (e.g., Reuters) rather than doing original reporting.
– Began building a **list of “places we find sourcesâ€�** on the board:
– Big wire services (Reuters), national broadcasters (KNR), named officials, anonymous officials, etc.
2. **Example 2 – Coalition government / India-related article (presented by Zoe)**
– Zoe mentioned quotations and paraphrases from the **Indian National Union** and reference to an “islands coalition government.â€�
– Observations:
– There were **direct quotations and paraphrases**, which is better than vague summary.
– However, the article often did **not clearly specify how the journalist knew** what the coalition government or officials had said:
– Did this come from a press release, a press conference, an interview, or another outlet?
– In several places, the sourcing was simply “the government said,â€� with **no link or transcript**.
– Instructor categorized these as **“unspecifiedâ€� or weakly specified sources**, even when in quotation marks.
3. **Example 3 – Iran protests article (“Iran warns protesters …�)**
– Another student presented an article on Iran (from Al Jazeera or similar).
– Observations:
– Article quoted **Iranian leaders** and warned protesters.
– Included **embedded video**, which is closer to primary source material.
– But the article did not clearly state:
– Exactly where those quotes came from (e.g., a televised speech, a written statement, a tweet).
– Instructor noted:
– **Video of the speech** is strong evidence when available, but the surrounding text is still often a paraphrase or selection of parts of that speech.
– Without a clear indication of the original context, we must still consider **how the journalist selected and framed the quotes**.
4. **Example 4 – Another article with unnamed leaders / “he said�**
– A quieter student from the back presented an article with multiple quotations.
– Again, there were **“he saidâ€�/“they saidâ€�** moments where source attribution was:
– Given in a perfunctory way (e.g., “the minister saidâ€�) and
– Not linked to any transcript, audio, or primary document.
– Instructor emphasized:
– News outlets often **“expect us to believeâ€� quotations** without showing us the original record.
– Analysts should not *automatically* distrust, but should also not take such quotations entirely at face value.
**Key conceptual takeaway from Activity 1**
– The instructor **did not** argue that all such outlets are untrustworthy.
– Instead, the message was:
– As analysts, we must **always ask: “Where did this information *actually* come from?â€�**
– We should distinguish:
– **The outlet relaying the info** (e.g., CNN, CGTN).
– **The actual primary or closer source** (e.g., the general, the government document, the video of the speech).
– This mindset will be used later in a dedicated exercise where students are tasked with **chasing a single quote back to its origin**.
#### 4. Activity 2 – Ranking Types of Sources by Proximity to the Original
**Pair work: ranking source types**
– Based on the board list compiled from the previous activity, students worked in pairs.
– Task: **Rank five types of sources from closest to farthest from the original source** of information, or simply “least verifiable.â€�
– The board list essentially included:
1. **Video/audio of the original speaker** (the “horse’s mouth�).
2. **Anonymous/unnamed sources** (e.g., “a government official who requested anonymity�).
3. **Other news site as a source** (e.g., “according to K&R,� “Reuters reported that…�).
4. **Direct quotations in the article** attributed to a person but without direct access to the original speech/document.
5. **Unspecified paraphrase** (“Iran said…�, “Trump claimed…�) where no further detail is given.
– Students debated the order; discussion followed.
**Whole-class debrief on rankings**
– **Closest to the original source: Video/audio of speaker**
– Justification:
– It is the **closest possible form of evidence** aside from being physically present:
– You can see/hear **exactly what was said**.
– You can evaluate tone, context, and completeness better than when reading a snippet.
– Instructor framed this as the gold standard for approaching a **primary source**: the original words and context, unmediated (or minimally mediated) by a journalist.
– **Next: Anonymous but direct insider sources**
– Example: “an anonymous government officialâ€� quoted in a reputable outlet.
– Pros:
– Often provide **unique inside information** that cannot be obtained otherwise.
– Many major stories depend on such sources (e.g., whistleblowers).
– Cons:
– We **cannot see or verify who they are**; we have to trust:
– The **news organization’s standards**.
– The **journalist’s decision** to grant anonymity.
– Conclusion:
– Potentially close to the original source, but **filtered through journalistic judgment and secrecy**, which moves it below direct video/audio.
– **Debated middle ranks: Other news sites vs. quotations vs. paraphrases**
– Students and instructor discussed several complications:
– **Other news sites:**
– Could be:
– High-quality (Reuters, AP, BBC) with strong standards, or
– Low-quality blogs or propaganda outlets.
– When one article paraphrases another article which itself paraphrases another actor, you get **a chain: source → outlet A → outlet B**.
– The **longer and weaker this chain**, the more cautious one should be.
– **Direct quotation vs. paraphrase:**
– If an article quotes someone **without a link or transcript**, you still **don’t see the original**; you rely on:
– The journalist accurately citing the exact words.
– Editorial choices about which lines to highlight.
– Paraphrasing can be acceptable if:
– It is clearly derived from a **known primary source** (e.g., paraphrasing a published speech).
– The paraphrased actor is clearly identified.
– However, if a story paraphrases **another outlet** rather than the original actor, the reliability falls.
– **Farthest / weakest: Unspecified paraphrase**
– Instructor and students agreed the **most problematic** category is:
– Claims like: “Iran said …â€�, “the government insisted …â€�, “critics argue …â€�
with **no clear trace** of:
– When or where those things were said.
– Whether this is a summary based on a press release, an interview, or speculation.
– This is especially weak when:
– It paraphrases **another news site** that itself is paraphrasing a primary source.
– There are **no quotations, no links, and no names**.
**Overarching principle**
– The instructor stressed that the exercise was not to produce a perfect, “officialâ€� hierarchy but to **train students to think consciously** about:
– **Proximity to the original source** (the “horse’s mouthâ€�).
– How **each layer of mediation** (paraphrase, anonymous sourcing, secondary outlets) adds potential distortion.
– Students were reminded of the mantra:
– In international relations and political analysis, **“it dependsâ€�** is often the honest answer, since:
– The **quality and reputation** of the outlet matters.
– The **risk context** (e.g., whistleblower might need anonymity) matters.
– Still, as a rule of thumb:
– **Closer is better**, and
– **Vague, multi-step paraphrasing** deserves skepticism.
– Instructor previewed a **future assignment**:
– Students will be given a specific claim or quotation and asked to **trace it back to the most original source** they can find.
#### 5. Activity 3 – Peer Review of Timelines for Biased Adjectives
**Context: Homework they brought in**
– For this class, students had been asked to prepare for their chosen event:
1. A **list of factual details** from two or more sources.
2. A **timeline of events** using those facts.
3. Notes on **agreement or disagreement** among sources.
**Partner swap and editing task**
– Students kept the same partners as for the source-ranking activity (to avoid extra disruption).
– Instructions:
– **Swap your homework** (timelines and fact lists).
– Review your partner’s **timeline** with the specific goal of identifying **adjectives** that may:
– Reflect **opinion**, value judgment, or framing rather than neutral description.
– Not be part of a **direct quotation** from a source.
– Examples of problematic adjectives:
– “Unprovoked,â€� “heroic,â€� “illegal,â€� etc.
– Students were to:
– **Flag / underline** any such adjectives.
– Distinguish between:
– Adjectives inside a **direct quotation** (acceptable if faithful to the source).
– Adjectives written by the student **in their own narrative voice** (often inappropriate in neutral reporting).
– Purpose:
– Train students to recognize **how subtle word choice can inject bias** into what should be a factual, chronological account.
– Prepare them to write **professionally neutral paragraphs**, especially for situation reports.
#### 6. Introduction to Writing a Neutral Situation-Report Paragraph (Homework Setup)
**Transition from timeline to narrative**
– With about two minutes left, instructor shifted to outlining the **next homework**:
– Take the existing **timeline** and **turn it into a narrative paragraph**.
– Objective: write a **draft situation-report paragraph** that:
– **Explains the event** in a neutral, chronological way.
– **Integrates multiple sources**, noting both agreement and disagreement.
– **Avoids personal opinion** or first-person language.
**Core requirements**
– **Length**: about **4–5 sentences**, one solid paragraph.
– **Evidence base**:
– Use the **two to three sources** the student has already collected for this exercise.
– No need to add new sources at this stage.
– **Tone and style**:
– Avoid **first-person pronouns** and first-person commentary:
– No “I think,â€� “in my opinion,â€� “I believe.â€�
– Write in **neutral, third-person language** appropriate for professional analytical writing.
– Explicitly show:
– Where sources **agree on facts**.
– Where they **disagree on facts** or **interpret those facts differently**.
**Three framing “formulas� provided on the board**
1. **Hedging (for unverified claims)**
– Use when facts are **reported but not substantiated** or when both sources rely on weak/indirect sourcing.
– Example structure (paraphrased from board):
– “While official statements from **Actor A** claim **X**, these claims remain **unverified**.â€�
– Function:
– Signals that the information exists in the discourse.
– Clearly communicates that the analyst **does not endorse it as established fact**.
2. **Contrasting (showing disagreement or different emphases)**
– Use when:
– Two (or more) sources **disagree on what happened**, or
– They **agree on the basic facts** but interpret or frame them differently.
– Example structures:
– “Source A states that **X**, whereas Source B emphasizes **Y**.â€�
– “While Source A frames the incident as **[framing 1]**, Source B presents it as **[framing 2]**.â€�
– Function:
– Makes disagreement **explicit**.
– Avoids the student taking sides; instead, the paragraph **maps the landscape of claims**.
3. **Synthesis (highlighting agreement)**
– Use when sources:
– Largely **converge on a core set of facts**, even if they differ in minor details.
– Example structures:
– “All three sources agree that **[event]** occurred on **[date]**.â€�
– “Despite minor discrepancies about **[detail]**, the sources concur that **[core fact]**.â€�
– Function:
– Shows where the factual **center of gravity lies**.
– Helps the reader understand which aspects are more solid vs. which are contested.
**Submission instructions**
– Students are to:
– Write the paragraph in **Microsoft Word** format (**.doc or .docx**).
– **Submit it on e-course** before the next Tuesday class.
– Clarifications given:
– Platform is **e-course**, not StudyAUCA or other systems:
– e-course = learning management system for assignments and class content.
– StudyAUCA = separate system for schedules/grades.
– Instructor confirmed that:
– Students know how to access e-course.
– All are enrolled in the course there.
– Brief policy reminder:
– Instructor noted a **15-minute lateness policy**:
– Students more than 15 minutes late cannot be marked present.
– Acknowledged that, since the **syllabus has not yet been distributed**, the policy cannot yet be strictly enforced.
– Indicated this would be formalized once students have the syllabus.
—
### Actionable Items (for Instructor), Organized by Urgency
#### High Priority – Before Next Class
– **Set up and verify e-course assignment**
– Ensure the **situation-report paragraph assignment** is clearly posted on e-course with:
– Due date/time (before next Tuesday’s class).
– File format requirement (**.doc/.docx**).
– Brief restatement of key instructions:
– Transform timeline into a 4–5 sentence neutral narrative.
– Use hedging/contrast/synthesis language where appropriate.
– No first-person pronouns or explicit opinions.
– **Check student e-course and AUCA-email access**
– In next class (or via email/Telegram), confirm:
– All students **can log into e-course** and see the assignment.
– Students who reported email issues have visited the **IT center** and resolved account access.
– Follow up individually with any who still lack access so they don’t fall behind on submissions.
– **Collect/scan for biased adjectives in timelines (if collected)**
– If students submit hard/soft copies of timelines:
– Review a subset for **subjective adjectives** (e.g., “aggressive,â€� “illegal,â€� “heroicâ€�).
– Prepare a few **anonymized examples** to show in the next class:
– Show how to revise them into **neutral descriptors** (e.g., “the attack occurred without prior warningâ€� instead of “unprovoked attackâ€�).
#### Medium Priority – For Upcoming Classes (Next 1–2 Weeks)
– **Clarify and reinforce “primary sourceâ€� definition with explicit examples**
– In a future session, present a short mini-lecture or slide:
– Distinguish clearly between:
– Primary sources (transcripts, official documents, raw video of speeches, eyewitness accounts).
– Secondary sources (news summaries, analyses).
– Show 2–3 **paired examples**:
– A speech video vs. a news article quoting that speech.
– A government report vs. a think-tank report analyzing it.
– Link this back to the ranking exercise to solidify the conceptual framework.
– **Provide a cleaner, non-ambiguous list of source categories**
– Prepare a revised classification for source proximity:
– E.g., “Official document,â€� “live video of speech,â€� “verified transcript,â€� “named on-the-record quote,â€� “anonymous official,â€� “secondary outlet summarizing another outlet,â€� “unspecified paraphrase.â€�
– Use that list in a short follow-up exercise to reduce the confusion/debate over “other news siteâ€� vs. paraphrases.
– **Distribute and review the syllabus**
– Give students the syllabus in print or PDF, ideally also via e-course.
– Explicitly review:
– Attendance and **15-minute lateness** policy.
– Late work policies.
– Overview of major assignments (including situation reports) and grading.
#### Longer-Term / Later-in-Semester
– **Design and schedule the “quote origin tracingâ€� exercise**
– Create a dedicated assignment where:
– Students are given a prominent quote or “factâ€� from a news piece.
– They must **trace it back** to the most original form they can find (speech, document, press release, etc.).
– They document: each step in the chain of sources and how the wording or framing changes.
– This will reinforce:
– Source proximity.
– Skepticism about paraphrase chains.
– Practical research skills.
– **Integrate source evaluation into subsequent writing tasks**
– For later, more advanced situation reports or analytical essays:
– Require explicit **source classification** (primary vs secondary, proximity level).
– Ask students to justify **why** they consider certain sources more reliable/authoritative.
– **Monitor and support neutral writing skills**
– As students submit more writing:
– Track recurring issues with **biased language** or hidden opinion.
– Provide targeted mini-lessons or written feedback:
– How to rephrase evaluative adjectives into neutral descriptions.
– How to separate **reportage (what happened)** from **interpretation (what it means)**.
This report should allow you to reconstruct the lesson’s flow: from identifying sources inside articles, to ranking their reliability, to editing timelines for bias, and finally to framing neutral, synthesized paragraphs for situation reports.
Homework Instructions:
ASSIGNMENT #1: Draft Situation-Report Paragraph
You will transform your factual timeline from the previous homework into a single neutral, professionally written paragraph that explains the event you have been researching. You will use the sources you already collected, and practice framing agreements, disagreements, and unverified information without inserting your own opinions, using the “hedge / contrast / synthesis� approaches discussed in class.
Instructions:
1. **Gather your previous homework materials**
1. Locate the work you brought to this class:
– Your **list of details/facts** about your chosen event.
– Your notes on **where sources agree or disagree**.
– Your **timeline of events** based on those facts.
2. If your partner marked any **subjective adjectives** in your timeline (e.g., “unprovoked,� “heroic,� “illegal,� “brutal,� “shameful�), make a note of them. These are exactly the kinds of evaluative words you must avoid in your paragraph unless they appear *inside* a direct quotation from a source.
2. **Check your sources and their status**
1. Make sure you are working with **2–3 news sources** for this event (as in the earlier assignment). You do *not* need to find additional sources beyond these unless you genuinely want to.
2. For each important fact in your timeline, briefly remind yourself:
– **Which source(s)** report this fact.
– Whether the fact is:
– **Clearly verified** (e.g., appears similarly across multiple credible sources, or comes from a direct video/audio/official document).
– **Disputed** (sources report different numbers, different sequences, or conflicting claims).
– **Unverified or vague** (e.g., based on “unnamed sources,â€� “according to reports,â€� or unspecified paraphrases).
3. **Decide on the core narrative of your paragraph**
1. Your paragraph should be **4–5 sentences**, and it should:
– Clearly state **what event** you are describing.
– Indicate **when** it took place (at least in general terms).
– Indicate **who the main actors are** (states, organizations, leaders, etc.).
– Present the **sequence of key events** in a logical order (you can follow your timeline).
– Show where the sources **agree**, **disagree**, or where information remains **unverified**.
2. Remember: you are not summarizing one article; you are presenting the event **based on a comparison** of your 2–3 sources.
4. **Plan how to use hedge / contrast / synthesis language**
Use the three approaches your instructor outlined on the board to frame the information:
1. **Hedge (for unverified or uncertain facts)**
– Use this when your sources rely on anonymous officials, vague attributions, or unverified claims.
– Example patterns (adapt them to your case):
– “According to official statements from [Actor A], …; however, these claims remain unverified.â€�
– “[Source X] reports that [claim], but no independent verification has been provided.â€�
– Apply hedging language where your timeline includes events or numbers that are **not clearly confirmed**.
2. **Contrast (for disagreements or different emphases)**
– Use this when your sources **disagree about what happened**, give different numbers, or frame the same event differently.
– Example patterns:
– “[Source A] emphasizes [X], whereas [Source B] focuses on [Y].â€�
– “[Source A] reports that [claim 1], but [Source B] instead states that [claim 2].â€�
– Make sure at least one part of your paragraph shows **how sources differ**—either in the facts themselves or in how they interpret or emphasize those facts.
3. **Synthesis (for points of agreement)**
– Use this when multiple sources report the **same basic facts**.
– Example patterns:
– “Both sources agree that [shared fact].â€�
– “All three reports indicate that [shared fact], though they differ on [detail].â€�
– Identify at least one or two **common points** that all (or most) of your sources share and present them together.
You do **not** need one sentence of each type in a rigid way, but somewhere in your 4–5 sentences you should clearly show **hedging where appropriate**, **contrasting** disagreements, and **synthesizing** agreements.
5. **Draft your neutral paragraph**
1. Write **one continuous paragraph** (no bullet points, no subheadings), 4–5 sentences long.
2. Begin with a clear, neutral opening sentence that introduces:
– The **event**,
– The **time frame**, and
– The **main actors**.
– Example structure:
– “In [month/year], [Actor A] and [Actor B] were involved in [brief description of event], according to [general reference to your sources].â€�
3. In the next sentences, walk the reader through the **key events in order**, using:
– **Synthesis** to show what all sources agree on (e.g., sequence of events, basic facts).
– **Contrast** to highlight differences (e.g., casualty numbers, responsibility, motives, interpretations).
– **Hedging** to mark any unverified or weakly sourced claims (e.g., anonymous officials, unspecified paraphrases).
4. End the paragraph with a sentence that:
– Briefly sums up the **overall situation**, and
– Optionally mentions any remaining **uncertainty or disagreement** among sources if it is important (e.g., “It remains unclear whether…,â€� “Reports differ on…â€�).
6. **Maintain a professional, non-opinionated tone**
1. **Do not use first-person language**:
– Avoid “I,â€� “me,â€� “we,â€� “our,â€� “in my opinion,â€� “I think,â€� etc., as your instructor explicitly requested.
2. Avoid **subjective or evaluative adjectives** unless they are inside a **direct quotation** from a source:
– Avoid words like “unprovoked,â€� “heroic,â€� “illegal,â€� “brutal,â€� “cowardly,â€� etc., in your own voice.
– If such words are important, you may include them as **quoted speech**, clearly attributing them to a speaker or source (e.g., “The government described the attack as ‘illegal’.â€�).
3. Write in a **third-person, analytical voice**, focusing on:
– Who did what,
– When,
– According to which sources,
– And how those sources align or conflict.
7. **Reference your sources clearly (briefly)**
1. You do not need full academic citations for this draft, but you should make it clear **which information comes from which source**.
2. Use simple in-text attributions, such as:
– “According to [News Outlet A]…â€�
– “[News Outlet B] reports that…â€�
– “Both [News Outlet A] and [News Outlet C] state that…â€�
3. Ensure that when you **contrast** or **synthesize**, the reader can tell which sources you are talking about.
8. **Format and save your work**
1. Type your paragraph in **Microsoft Word**.
2. Save the file in **.doc or .docx format** as requested.
3. Make sure the document contains:
– Your **name**,
– The **title of your case/event** (e.g., “Situation Report Draft: Protests in X, 2022â€�),
– And the single 4–5 sentence paragraph.
9. **Submit your assignment**
1. Upload your **.doc or .docx** file to the appropriate assignment link on eCourse.
2. Submit it **before our Tuesday class**, as specified by your instructor.
3. Verify that your file has uploaded correctly (open it from eCourse if possible to double-check).
By following these steps, you will practice moving from a raw timeline of facts to a concise, neutral, professionally framed situation-report paragraph that reflects the agreements, disagreements, and uncertainties in your sources.