Checking Your Sources

It probably dates me to say that 'back when I was in school, we didn't have internet research' but it's the truth. When I was going through high school and even parts of my undergraduate years, we didn't really have as much information out on the internet as we seem to have today. Research was done in the library by actually walking from shelf to shelf to get the books, scan through them and then determine if the book contained the information you needed to support your arguement. As time went on the search databases at the library got a little more advanced and gave you the capability to search for specific content but still, you had to do research on your own.

Now as I work towards my MBA I have found that the internet is an invaluable tool for research though I have found that I have to be even more careful in how I gather my sources and who I cite as a source in order to avoid any erroneous statements. This applies to the world of journalism as well but it's even harder for journalists. See for students like me, we are usually quoting about things that have already been set in stone someplace or another. We can find definitive answers; contrast that with journalists who have to break new ground at times in order to determine the facts and separate the false leads from their stories. I still look at the tabloids that line the checkout lanes of grocery stores and shake my head as I scan some of the headlines.

Sure they aren't a source of reliable information but what is these days? The National Inquirer 'breaks news' on numerous topics every issue but more than half of them can be scoffed at as soon as you read the headlines but is this always the case? Take the example of the recent news over John Edwards. The National Enquirer had made claims that he was in a relationship with a journalist who was covering his campaign. Most people laughed it off as a joke (as most of the National Enquirer's stories are) but some journalists took it upon themselves to check it out and ended up getting to the bottom of the story and found that it was indeed truth. Was this to be the exoneration of the tabloid industry? Well yes and no. They could certainly rest upon their laurels and claim to have broken news that no one else had but then again this was the first correct story in a string of false ones.

I don't mean to knock tabloid journalists but they aren't the most well-reputed. Their claims can range from the plausible to the outlandish and getting corroberation on these stories is the hard part. Even the internet can be a bane as far as that goes. In my first year of my MBA I was taking an introductory course on doing web-based research and determining what was or wasn't a good source of information from the internet. At that point, Wikipedia, the internet encyclopedia that practically anyone could update, was a hot source for some quick information and many of my classmates were quick to use it. I was hesitant because of the fact that practically anyone could add information to the site which could later be altered or corrected if not exactly correct. I had my first inkling of that when doing casual reading on the Apollo space program and found that according to Wikipedia the program was named after the famous Heavyweight Boxing champion Apollo Creed (famous for his bouts against Rocky Balboa). When I read that I knew that most everything from that source was to be taken lightly.

That's not to knock this or any other source on the internet as being sketchy but it just drives home the point that not everything you see or read can be readily accepted as the truth. I guess that can apply to anything you see or read. No newspaper or print or television journalism is completely free of some slant or the other. Some sources slant even more than others but on the whole, their attempts at journalistic 'neutrality' can be taken with a wink and a nod. What you see and hear for yourself is probably the best source of information and confirmation and will help you in figuring out what is or isn't real. There may be other better sources but at the very least, don't take the first answer to be the only one.