A lot of what I know stems from
listening to what other people are talking about or, in other terms, what’s
“trending.” I retrieve a lot of such information from family and friends.
Depending on the person, the content, or where they claim they heard the information,
I do my own type of research and follow-up.
As I was reading through my Twitter
feed today, I saw an article from The Economist that talked about why Brazil is
such an expensive country. You can view the article here: http://tinyurl.com/luo2n2z
I believe the information to be true
based on other reports I’ve read regarding the currency appreciation and taxes
in Brazil. However, for the purposes of this assignment, I did choose to log onto
the “About Us” section of The Economist website and learned much more about the
organization as a whole that made me believe even more in their reporting. What
I discovered is that The Economist does not include authors or their work
because they believe that what is written is more important than who wrote it.
I also learned that, since 1928, half the shares of The Economist have been
owned by the Financial Times (a subsidiary of Pearson) and by independent
shareholders. The board of trustees appoints the editor. (The Economist, About
Us)
I believe, as the example mentioned
above, social media sites are definitely reliable for obtaining credible
information. However, like anything else, you must go to the source and
determine the validity of the information. If a friend of mine had posted this
same information I would have asked her to cite her sources or give me evidence
of why we should take this as fact.
The Economist. (2013). Abous Us.
Hi Carissa,
ReplyDeleteI was fascinated by your statement about The Economist not crediting authors. I went to the "about us" section you mention and also appreciated the additional information posted there that anonymity keeps the editor "not the master but the servant of something far greater than himself." and how that practice "gives to the paper an astonishing momentum of thought and principle." I'm impressed by their teamwork approach and sense of accountability as a whole entity, not as individuals. Thanks for sharing. Excellent information!
Linda
Hi Carissa,
ReplyDeleteAs a fellow follower of The Economist, I applaud your research into the organization. I've always read and enjoyed their articles; however, I have never investigated who wrote the information I was reading. I've just always considered the organization to be a credible source.
The information you have provide raises some questions in my mind. Although it is great in theory that The Economist wants to ensure the purity of the information they report by excluding author information, I still would be interested to find out more information on the people who are writing the stories and their background.
I am embarrassed to admit that I never sought out author information, but this class is reinforcing the importance of knowing who is giving me my information. If the editor of The Economist is appointed by the board of trustees of a private company, there is potential for their to be some economic advantage to giving this person the position. How will that person influence the writers?
These are all things your post as led me to consider. What an interesting post! Thank you for sharing the information.
Katie -
DeleteExcellent point regarding finding out the background of the writers who publish on The Economist. I never thought of it from that viewpoint before, but you are absolutely correct!
Thank you for challenging my initial thoughts!
Carissa
Good post Carissa. I particularly liked the process you went through to understand a bit more about the information you received. I think it's a great step in the right direction. However, as I commented on another blog, in order to be truly critical and analytical, we can't be content with just going to the official website of an organization. We should also consult other sources to receive a different type of angle on the organization. For instance, what do people who are not in line with The Economist's "free market" stance say about it?
ReplyDelete