1)The New York Times source (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/17/technology/internet/17facebook.html?_r=1) speaks of the privacy issue that was raised as Facebook changed its terms of service. Considering that the information posted on this source came from a reporter and not the editorial section of a reputable newspaper, one can say that this source is unbiased and simply just "stating the facts". I see no reason why the reporter would try to sway the reader into believing what Facebook did was just or not. The language that was used in this article also reinforces the last statement. This article also gives plenty of information regarding the issue and gives links to other sources that were involved in this privacy issue.
2) In the smoking gun link (http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2009/0217092samsung1.html) which refers to the 14 year old being arrested, the story seems a bit possible. Except that the article seems to take things a bit too far. I would buy that a student would get in trouble for texting but have somewhat of a hard time believing that a student would be arrested because they would not stop text. Also the website is known for making up more than a few stories. Although a "rap sheet" is shown in the article, i have a hard time believing that a police station would make information like that public. The site seems to be making fun of people who text way too much and gives an extreme view of what may happen someday. Perhaps this story was inspired by the law that makes texting while driving illegal. I would not use this site as a credible source or at least think twice before using this as a source.
3) As i read through the Amanda L. French article (http://amandafrench.net/2009/02/16/facebook-terms-of-service-compared/) on the Facebook privacy issue i realize that, although on the top of the page it says that she is a "Ph.D.", how can i really trust her to not lie about being one. Of course this is just an assumption made by just viewing on of her sites pages. Surely if one takes their time to look through a website one can see if the source is lying about anything or if it in truth is a reliable source. The information on the article seems to really put down Facebook and its terms of service, but everything is reinforced by a lot of evidence. I agree that the terms of service that try to own your stuff are a bit much, but if i used this source for any reason i would have to keep in mind that this article really is opinionated, no matter how informative it is.
......Hopefully this is enough info for this assignment....
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Nice work here. Can you trust a blog post? Is Amanda French published some place else? Other than her evidence and confident tone, can you trust the comparison?
ReplyDeleteThe smoking gun article was definitely not a credible source, but really got my attention at first. Before i even knew what it was about the title got me. Good point about the people making text messaging while driving illegal, could make this fake article the next new law. What is really the point of banning text messaging while driving? everyone does it any way. Text messaging in class and being arrested for it would sure make a lot of teenagers become "delinquents"
ReplyDeletethe New York times article made me think twice about signing up for face book or myspace. is my life still even "private"? Indeed it is from the new york times, so anyone would believe it to be a credible source to be "true". great analyzation of the articles
After looking through a few of other people's blog assignments, I think yours is probably the most accurate as to what needed to be done. Not only did you explain what the article was about, you also tried to analyze how the report was written and what circumstances it might have been written in and whether or not it was objective. Good job.
ReplyDeleteThe facebook article that is informative and possibly slanted against facebook still provides lots of evidence. True it may be more factual evidence from one perspective but nonetheless it is an authoritative source. Good support for the smoking gun article, the smoking gun is definitely not a credible site. It does have a reputation for providing false information or made up stories. The only possible way in my opinion to trust a blog post is to understand the authors point of view and their history, meaning that a highly educated individual with a phD and masters degree in science blogs about science is more credible than a highschool student
ReplyDelete