FALLIBLE FOX

Author & Publication Info (People & Context Part 2)

​

Once you determine that what you're reading is not purposefully seeking to mislead the audience, we still need to vet the quality of the work. Note that the following section is focused on information to consider as you read written works found online or in print. However, this applies just as well to media in other formats, like podcasts or video. Key points:

 

• It's valuable to consider information about the author or publication that is tied to trustworthiness of the article's content. The following are three factors to consider: (a) author expertise, (b) ethical history, and (c) biasing factors. Each of which will receive attention in later sections of this module.

​

• Be aware that any beliefs or attitudes you have about the author or publisher—even irrelevant and unfounded opinions—may automatically and unconsciously distort your perception of the piece.

​

• Try to consciously reflect on your feelings and ideas about the author and publication to assess whether they should or should not enter into your evaluation of the piece.

 

​​Sometimes, you'll hold prior beliefs about the author or publication and some positive or negative attitudes toward them. Such attitudes and beliefs may arise from your having read their prior work, what you've been told by other people about their work, or online rumours about their personal lives. This is where we need to bring the metacognition module back into awareness—think consciously about the preconceptions you have,  where they might come from, and how they could be distorting your views of the written work. 

 

First, carefully consider the kinds of beliefs and attitudes you hold about the author, their affiliations, and the publication. Where do you think these views or feelings come from—are they based on established facts, rumours, or on some gut response you have? Might your views be based on superficial and likely irrelevant features like who it was that sent you the link, how the article is presented, or the physical characteristics of the author?

 

For example, are you finding yourself dismissive or excessively critical of the arguments because you dislike the author’s personality or disapprove of someone with whom they once associated? This could be a warning sign that you’re not reading effectively; that you're distracted by peripheral or irrelevant information. Question whether that information guiding your view is relevant. For example, is the information verifiable and related to that author's trustworthiness or expertise in a relevant field of study? If it's not, see if you can at least temporarily disconnect the written work from some of your attitudes about the writer.

 

​The same goes for the venue where the piece is published (e.g., the online magazine or newspaper). Perhaps, at the same website, you once read another article to which you were morally opposed. Maybe you heard from a friend that the site has a political bias that is misaligned with your own. At least two things should be considered. First, do you have good reason to believe that the information you have about the publication is true? Second, does the information you have about the publication provide good reason for distrusting specific works published there?

​

Crafting Personal Arguments to Assess Your Sense of the Piece

​

Processing the value of a source in this way should remind you of what we explored in the arguments and truth claims module. That is,  you can use your understanding of what makes for a good argument to reflect on whether you have good reason to distrust the piece:

​

The author is _________ (premise 1)

The publication is _________ (premise 2)

Therefore, I shouldn't trust the article (conclusion)

 

Just as we found in the arguments and truth claims module, you need to assess (a) whether the premises are true and (b) whether the conclusion logically follows from the premises. A poor personal argument for distrusting a piece, of course, means you don't have a good reason to distrust the piece! Here's an example of a clearly bad argument for distrusting the piece:

​

The author had once been photographed next to a right-wing extremist (premise 1)

The website published across the political spectrum (premise 2)

Therefore, I shouldn't trust the article (conclusion)

​

Premise 1 is insufficient evidence for the conclusion and premise 2 is irrelevant or possibly somewhat contradictory to the conclusion. These are clearly not good reasons for distrusting what you've read.

​

What information is useful?

​

​​​If info about the author and publication can sometimes bias or distort your thinking, should you try to avoid learning more about the author and publication? That would be a mistake. Having more information is generally better than having less and some kinds of information about the people and institutions behind what you're reading can be extremely useful.

​

As we assess the people and institutions behind the what we read, we can carve out three areas for targeted inquiry:

​

1. Whether the author is equipped with the understanding to write about the subject (e.g., are they an expert?)

2. Whether the author can be trusted to communicate ethically and free of significant bias.

3. Whether the publication trustworthy.

 

Upcoming sections of this module will deal with each in turn.