Publishing articles on the web has become so easy that almost anybody can do it. This is the main reason we need to do a thorough job researching which sites have good solid information, and which ones don't have all the facts. Many online publications can be based more on opinion and less on information, and this can make it tough for a reader to filter. I am always trying to keep up with anything scientific or environmental and I found and studied an article on the Huffington Post today. The article, Supreme Court Declines Exxon Mobil's Appeal In New York City Water Pollution Case, didn't seem to have many cited sources, however Reuters had published the article about 20 minutes before Huffington Post. Reuters has a reputation for being very professional and efficient for any news published.
Although this story is breaking news, it stems from an incident 5 years ago regarding chemical leaks into the water supply. The appeal from Exxon was denied, because they had used possible carcinogens for a couple of decades. Exxon claims to have used the substance methyl tertiary butyl ether as a fuel additive to help vehicle emissions. However, they seem to have ignored the dangers of contaminating the backup water supply for Queens in New York. This story definitely holds up to being valid, and has very credible sources. However, if someone was to simply start mass posting this across social media outlets without showing sources the whole story may end up skewed after some time. Although this article itself is well written and well researched, people have a tendency to start adding opinionated comments when publishing on social media. If people were allowed to publish professional articles without regulations, stories and articles would be almost impossible to validate. There is also the possibility that writers wouldn't cite their sources, which is ethically wrong to begin with.
Hurley, L. (2014, April 21). Supreme Court Declines Exxon Mobil's Appeal In New York City Water Pollution Case. The Huffington Post. Retrieved , from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/21/supreme-court-exxon-mobil-nyc_n_5185486.html?fb_action_ids=10201966618792672&fb_action_types=og.likes&fb_source=other_multiline&action_object_map=%7B%2210201966618792672%22%3A788439304518937%7D&action_type_map=%7B%2210201966618792672%22%3A%22og.likes%22%7D&action_ref_map=%5B%5D
Monday, April 21, 2014
Sunday, April 13, 2014
Social Media and Truth
How do people obtain information in order to know what they know? I start off by thinking there are several ways in which we gain information, but gaining and retaining valid information may be a bit tougher at times. The first step for any data exchange is for the subject to be exposed to the information involved. This is where readers need to be a bit careful when choosing which medium to utilize as a valid information producer. This becomes evident when looking through the stories and information posted or shared on Facebook. Although at times social media can be a great place to find solid sources of info.
Just today my wife shared a link with me on Facebook, and I was very impressed with the actual source and content. It was a story found on a Rainforest Action Network (RAN) site, and it is very good news for nature preservationists. This article claims that JP Morgan Chase will no longer be funding any mountaintop removal operations. I do believe this story, as the link was an organizational website, and most organizations hold high standards of integrity for data they post. Of course I will continue to research the topic, but I definitely leaned to the side of believing this source as a valid example. I was really intrigued by this story, because mountaintop removal is a highly debated topic in the area I live.
(Starbuck, 2014) explains how many financial institutions have been thinking the same way as of lately. I am glad to know that mountaintop removal is beginning to lose traction, by losing access to some of the money that drives their operations. I think this is one good example of how a social media site can directly led to a valuable source of information, although there is quite a sea of misinformation online as well.
Just today my wife shared a link with me on Facebook, and I was very impressed with the actual source and content. It was a story found on a Rainforest Action Network (RAN) site, and it is very good news for nature preservationists. This article claims that JP Morgan Chase will no longer be funding any mountaintop removal operations. I do believe this story, as the link was an organizational website, and most organizations hold high standards of integrity for data they post. Of course I will continue to research the topic, but I definitely leaned to the side of believing this source as a valid example. I was really intrigued by this story, because mountaintop removal is a highly debated topic in the area I live.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)