90 likes | 379 Views
A critical look at your sources. ”Dagspressens kilder” ( Sources in the Daily Press ) Center for Journalism and Education , 2006. 2.359 oral sources. 3 month/06. 751 answers. 8 out of 10 sources are men. 55% have an academic degree (5% in DK).
E N D
”Dagspressens kilder”(Sources in the DailyPress)Center for Journalism and Education, 2006 • 2.359 oral sources. 3 month/06. 751 answers. • 8 out of 10 sources are men. • 55% have an academic degree (5% in DK). • 69% interviewed +10 times during last 3 years (applies to less than 1 % of Danish population). • 10% only representing them selves (not organisations, companies, professions, institutions.)
…”Dagspressens kilder” • 25% do not feel informed on the contents of the article. • 33% do not feel sufficiently informed on how they will be quoted. • 2 out of 3 judge the journalist as well prepared. • 30% judge that the journalist wanted them to say something in particular. • 5% feel they were quoted wrongly. • 12% acknowledge quotes, but not the context. • 20 % find that the paper overdramatises. • 25% find the headline misleading. • 50% identify one or more mistakes and inaccuracies in the text.
The motives of your sources • Who (individuals/institutions) have a self-interest in the case? • Who has an interest in disclosure? And who do not? • To whom would a solution to the problem be an advantage? To whom wouldn’t it? … double check with an extra source if the information is controversial.
Testingcompetence… by Jesper Tynell Winner of the Cavling-prize, 2009
As far as cases are concerned… • Case = an example of something = inductive • Strategically representative selection • Validation of sources: Representativity, loyalty, tendency, expertise…
Credibility of written sources Scientific publications, non-fiction books and dictionaries have undergone control: • Set of rules • Peer reviewing • Control by publisher • Private publisher?