News Article Sharing

I so enjoy reading all the news articles posted to Gather for our consideration. They make me think or stretch my world a bit. These shared bits in themselves are excellent reasons for me to read and comment.

HOWEVER ---

I feel guilty and resource-less.

Why aren't the original sources noted? Which paper or publication did the article come from? Who or which news agency wrote the piece? How can any reader draw reliable conclusions and determine the validity of the source without a means to track it down?  I have an immediate sense of good research when the New England Medical Journal or a well known research school/facility does testing then when an unknown source discusses its research.  How do I know if you got this from the BBC, Planned Parenthood, Pro-Life publication. The Hemlock Society, WorldPress.org, Los Angeles Times, New Republic, National Inquirer, or my favorite - Mad Magazine?  Validity of resources is important not just for science news or current events but to give the reader a sense of reliability.

Wikipedia discussion: "Media bias is a term used to describe a real or perceived bias of journalists and news producers within the mass media, in the selection of which events will be reported and how they are covered.  The term "media bias" usually refers to a pervasive or widespread bias contravening the standards of journalism, rather than the perspective of an individual journalist or article. The direction and degree of media bias in various countries is widely disputed, although its causes are both practical and theoretical."  This is why I watch for bias and take it into account when reading anything.

At one time or other we all complain about "bias in the news."  The fact is, despite the journalistic ideal of "objectivity," every news story is influenced by the attitudes and background of its reviewers, writers, photographers and editors.  Not all bias is deliberate. But, you can become a more aware news reader or viewer by watching for typical journalistic and logic techniques that allow bias to "creep in" to the news or color opinion pieces.

The next step is to then consider one's own biases while reading.  Our own prejudices, experience and beliefs deeply tint our interpretation of our world.   We respond to trigger words, new ideas or a story‘s bias on several levels of awareness.  I have learned techniques to open my mind by trying to temporarily suspend my own belief or using empathy to be able to experience the views of the writer.  But often I am in a hurry and just let the words wash over me and react without much thought.  But sometimes, I want to better understand what is being said.

Why can't the writer/poster at least add a paragraph about their reaction to the copy and paste piece?  What emotional impact did it have on them?  Did they get an "Aha, I thought so" reaction or a sense of disbelief?   Did the article inspire them or elicit a hopeful feeling?  Or, was the feeling "not bloody likely" or "hello, reality check needed here"?  What made you the reader feel that way?  Did the reviewer see a connection to other studies in other fields?  Can the event happen in my local community or is it too far removed?  What made the poster want to copy and paste the article?

I have a simple request: Please post the URL (Uniform Resource Locator) or URI (Uniform Resource Identifier).  This is the web site 'address' for a resource available on the Internet.  The first part of a URL is called the "scheme".  The most well known scheme is http, but there are others.  I would like to know where the article originated.  How reliable is the source and what is their viewpoint?

Oh, and could the writer please take the time to add some related links to the Gather.com publication?  They add tremendously to the information presented.  They also give the reader some key words and phrases to start a more detailed search to corroborate your information.