What I’d like you to do is find a health/physiology related media…

Question Answered step-by-step What I’d like you to do is find a health/physiology related media… What I’d like you to do is find a health/physiology related media piece  (long-form article – at least two pages, news segment, video, podcast episode, etc.) and evaluate the credibility of the piece using the RADARS technique (Rationale, Accuracy, Date, Authority, Relevance, Sources) technique.Your piece can be any health/physiology media piece you’re interested in, **that you suspect is NOT credible**. You will NOT be graded on the piece’s accuracy OR whether I agree with your conclusion; you’ll be graded on your own *careful analysis*!  3. Question:Provide a link or a copy of the media piece that I can review. Please also provide the source for the piece.One technique for independently EVALUATING THE CREDIBILITY OF INFORMATION SOURCES.Answer the questions provided in each section as it guides you through evaluating your piece.QUESTIONS TO ASK ABOUT THE RATIONALE FOR THE PIECE:4.What is the intended purpose? (to inform, to argue, to persuade, to sell, educate, question, etc.)5.Who is the intended audience for this piece (those with knowledge of a specific discipline, the general public, a specific target audience)?6.Is there advertising?  Is there a sponsor? Who pays to make this information available?7.Misinformation often seeks to exploit our most deeply held values and beliefs to generate outrage and anger. Exaggerated or provocative headlines often generate more attention. Does the author use emotionally provocative language?If so, cite the language you think is provocative. If not, does the headline seem to fit the piece’s tone and content well?8. Before delving into credibility, check to see if the article is intended to be taken seriously. MANY people have been fooled by an Onion article. Check the About page, if it exists. Is the piece intended as satire? Why or why not?9.Who is/are the author/s?What are the author’s educational credentials or organizational affiliations?Are their credentials relevant to the topic? For instance, a PhD in Astrophysics doesn’t make a person an expert in oncology. What makes the author qualified to write about the topic?10.Can you find information about the author on the internet or cited in other books in this field?Open a new window and do a search about the publication, website, and/or author. See what others say about the organization, publisher, or author.Has the author written authoritatively about this topic before?11.Does the author explain his or her method for collecting the information presented? If not, what do you wonder about how the information was obtained? QUESTIONS TO ASK ABOUT THE DATE OF THE SOURCE:12.Since our scientific understanding accumulates with time, dates matter! When was the piece published?Is there a more recent article on the topic that you can read?Is your topic from a field of study that changes rapidly?Is the information obsolete? QUESTIONS TO ASK ABOUT THE ACCURACY OF THE SOURCE:13.Does the piece contain statements you know to be false from other credible sources?14.VERIFY WITH FACT-CHECKING SITES. Here are a few.: FactCheck.org https://www.factcheck.orgFact Checker (The Washington Post) https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/ Snopes https://www.snopes.comAllSides https://www.allsides.com/unbiased-balanced-news Do any of these sites contradict the content in your piece?15.There is a heirarchy of credibility in media pieces, especially those that refer to scientific phenomena1. Peer reviewed2. Editorially reviewed3. Minimally reviewed4. AnecdoteWhere do you think your piece falls in the credibility hierarchy, with the information you’ve been provided? Explain your answer. Where do you think your piece falls in the credibility hierarchy, with the information you’ve been provided? Explain your answer.16.Does the provided evidence back up the author’s claims related to health or physiology?17.Is the information gossip, hearsay, or anecdote? None of these are sources for scientific information. Be wary of articles stating ‘people say’, ‘sources report’, or ‘they say’ without identifying the sources. QUESTIONS TO ASK ABOUT YOUR PIECE’S PRIMARY AND SECONDARY SOURCES:18.Check the source of your piece through this site, which assesses media sources on an interactive graph, from more to less reliable and from left, balanced, to right political bias. If you found the source of your piece, where does it fall on the graph?  If it’s not there, do your best to guess where it might fall.Most reliable (green)Reliable (yellow)Some reliability issues (orange)Serious reliability issues (red)https://adfontesmedia.com/interactive-media-bias-chart/?utmsource=HomePageIMBCVideoClip&utmmedium=OnWebSiteLinkandButton19.19.Scientific claims come from scientific experiments/publications/observations. Does the piece cite sources (in either a bibliography, links, video or podcast notes)?Follow links and citations and evaluate the quality of THOSE.Do the photographs (if any) have attributions, or are they stock photos? Do a reverse image search to find out whether the images are original. (instructions here: https://libguides.libraries.wsu.edu/c.php?g=616286&p=4301109 ) If yes, are the sources from reputable, peer-reviewed journals or websites (.gov, .edu, .org)?If not, should health/physiology related media cite sources to be considered credible20.FINAL OVERALL EVALUATION:  To what extent is it a credible/reliable piece? Provide your number and explain your rationale.    Biology Science Physiology BIOL 2420 Share QuestionEmailCopy link Comments (0)