Credibly Critiquing

I choose an article of relevance to breakdown in terms of its credibility. I heard on the radio that there has been some reluctance to travel to the Sochi Olympic Games by Americans. Specifically, I hear that is you wear America’s colors, you could be subject to violence. So I found this interesting and alarming at the same time so I wanted to dig deeper. I stumbled upon an article by Time Magazine written by Michael Crowley entitled U.S. Officials: “Uptick in Threat Reporting” for Sochi- but Don’t Panic. This article explained the thought of these perceived security threats and gave some good information about what our government is doing and thinking. The thought that immediately came to me, was how do I know what is real and what is not. Understanding the specific measure to ask oneself is key in making that judgment either positive or negative. The first thing I did was GOOGLE the author. I skipped the step of worrying about the website, because TIME is a publication that has been around for decades and responsible for reporting some of our countries best and worst news. Crowley is clearly associated with a dominant publication so this gives instant credibility, but why should I believe what the author reports? She/he could be published in TIME and not be credible, but I don’t know this until I research. So as I researched I found that Michael Crowley is a Senior Correspondent for TIME. So right there it shows that he is established within TIME, but also list other publications he has written in including GQ, the New York Times, and reports for the Boston Globe. Not only that, but Crowley is an expert in domestic politics and foreign policy. This answers the question of whether the author has authority in his field, which he does. As I researched more articles that Crowley has written, I found tons, but nothing scholarly. Now clearly I can see that he has had many “tests” of his professionalism because he has written for hundreds of news sites and publications. I believe this serves as that test and Crowley passes with flying colors. Also, with this being a time sensitive issue, I noticed that the article was actually written today. I like that about online reporting because often we can see exactly what time the report was posted and it provides credibility because I can conclude I’m getting real-time information. There was one piece of the report that got me thinking, briefly of course The fact that he quoted anonymous sources from the Obama Administration raised an eyebrow, though seeing that Crowley was evidently credible, I can respect that he must hide his inside sources. Also, due to his track record and the publications he’s been associated with, I can rest my mind and believe his quotes. It is clear to see that with some additional research, I can be sure that what I’m reading is credible and the author is credible in his reporting. The Criteria to evaluate credibility guidelines, put things in perspective as to who, what, when, where, and why of information we are viewing.  Viewing the criteria provided has been helpful for future use, I just hope I don’t automatically discredit information due to me now knowing. I once heard that you should only trust information you’ve researched and due to this assignment I can truly understand and appreciate this.

Crowley, Michael. (2014. Jan. 24) U.S. Officials: “Uptick in Threat Reporting” for Sochi- but        Don’t Panic. Retrieved from http://swampland.time.com/2014/01/24/u-s-officials-uptick- in-threat-reporting-for-sochi-but-dont-panic/

http://mason.gmu.edu/~montecin/web-eval-sites.htm