Nathan Swyers

If you had an essay assignment 50 years ago, there was a pretty standard way of getting your information. Go to the library, pour through journals, track down books, and find the information you’re looking for.

Today, this process is generally the same, but we go about it in a different way. If you want a journal article, those same resources are available online or at least searchable online. Libraries have computer search engines in place of enormous cabinets of file cards. I don’t think Melvil Dewey expected his Decimal system to ever get this many hits.

There is also an ever-increasing amount of information exclusively available on the Internet. The pubic encyclopedia Wikipedia is a great example of a source that might offer some info not available anywhere else.

So, is all of this too much? Are we experiencing an information overload? Can we handle the sheer enormity of resources at our fingertips at any time of day? I think so.

What’s great about resources online is that they don’t overload the reader, because the resources aren’t there without input from the reader. A website doesn’t popup unless you type in it’s address. You won’t see a document unless you open it yourself. The information is there, but you need to access it yourself.

The challenge is to be able to sort through the garbage and find the useful bits. Analyzing sources, especially those online, is a key skill in anyone’s arsenal but especially in a journalist’s. The information is out there, hidden away somewhere, but you’ll need to find it and decide if it’s credible and relevant. Is that so different than some poor schmuck buried in 30 pounds of books in the dusty library stacks on a friday night?

“We know there is a vast morass of information out there that our audiences want us to try to make sense of. The danger consists in trying to leap above it, not by getting more dramatic or salient or verifiable facts, but by analyzing, speculating, predicting, interpreting – by drawing definitive conclusions while the bodies are still warm.”
Paul Knox, The Globe and Mail

The above quote stresses the importance of accuracy and research in reporting. It’s not enough just to report on the facts, telling the audience what happened and when. A good reporter analyzes and interprets the facts based on careful research.

Journalistic analysis has nothing to do with injecting your own beliefs into the mix. Predictions and speculations are only valid when they are the result of research. This can be through experts in the subject that provide information leading to these conclusions.

If a journalist simply jumps to conclusions after hearing a sensational story, the consequences can be disastrous. The CRTC and other regulatory bodies work to ensure journalists maintain credibility, but it’s generally up to the journalist to ensure everything checks out. There are severe consequences far beyond a simple correction, and there is no hand holding along the way. It pays to be aware of your sources, your facts, and how you are using your information. Any analysis, speculation, or predictions should come as a result of careful research, instead of hype and sensationalism.

Twenty years ago, there was a lot more sweat and tears involved in getting information. If you wanted to know how many people die each year in motorcycle accidents, you had to head to the library or make some phone calls. Chances are, it would take some time to track down a reliable, accurate figure.

These days, you can find the information in under a minute. An Internet search engine will point you in exactly the right direction, but how can you be sure it’s reliable and accurate? There’s virtually (no pun intended) no sweat and tears involved in an Internet search, so does this undermine the quality of the results?

Like any type of research, it depends on the source. Just like going to a library or making a phone call, you could end up with a shoddy source. Chances are, clicking on the top result of a Google search and trusting what you see is a recipe for academic disaster, but there are reliable methods of finding quality, factual information using the Internet.

I’ve used online journal databases before. Many of the periodicals that theBrain uses for its searches are shared among schools across Canada and the world. When I was doing essays for my English degree, I spent a lot of time sifting through articles in Jstore, Lion, and other databases. I have found that the information is credible and useful, but the articles are almost always available as a hard copy as well. Using the online version is faster, as you can use keywords and phrases to find exactly what you need, but not everything is available in its full-text online. I find the main benefit to having this information online is the ability to work at any time of the day. My local library closes at 9pm. If I need to find something at 2am, the Internet is always open. In the end, it’s like all resources: if you’re thorough and you use the right tools, you can find useful information.

Unfortunately, it’s not always as easy as it sounds. Sometimes, a seemingly trustworthy source of information could have hidden motives that harm the credibility of the research you are doing. If you are using a particular website as a source for a story about gun safety, and you find out the site is funded by a national gun club, the site obviously has a clear bias.

What about Wikipedia.org? It is proclaimed as an unbiased, extensive online encyclopedia. Supporters say that because absolutely anyone can edit the content, it is unbiased. Well, it may seem that way on the surface.

Recently, the website came under fire by thousands of users. Co-founder Jimmy Wales became involved in a relationship with Canadian media figure Rachel Marsden. She had contacted him by E-mail, asking if he could review her bio on Wikipedia, saying that it portrayed her unfairly.

Wikipedia prides itself on being the world’s largest, impartial encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Wales is accused of inappropriately moderating the article about Marsden, severely damaging the credibility of the site itself.

Later, Wales reportedly broke up with Marsden via an announcement on the website. Marsden responded in kind.

“It was such a classy move that I was inspired to do something equally classy myself, so I’m selling a couple of items of clothing he left behind… Jimbo was obviously supposed to come visit me in a couple of weeks and pick up some of his stuff, but obviously that won’t be happening now,” said Marsden in the same eBay posting.

So, how credible do you think Wikipedia is now? There is sufficient evidence to suggest that Wales edited an article on Wikipedia because his girlfriend did not like the way she was being portrayed. What other articles are moderated in this fashion for hidden motives? It isn’t always clear what sites are completely credible, and when you are researching a story you need to be sure your source is exactly who they say they are. When you’re in the byline of a story, it’s your name on the line.