Teacher Issues

Post Reply New Topic

Ok, here is is attempting to identify for you a basic problems with blogs, in that there is no quality control inherent to a blog. Some may have good information, others may not. Some bloggers may simply make things up and say them as if they are unvarnished truth. He is saying, for instance, that if he asked you to write an argument piece for the class, and support your argument with valid sources, he would not accept blogs as original sources of information. On the other hand, blogs may point you to an original source, in which case, citing that original source would be perfectly acceptable. In this case, I would also say that I would not accept a blog as a source of information in one of my classes. I suspect that when he adds the word 'class', he is not trying to trick anyone. He simply assumed that it was understood in the first statement and included it in the second statement as a form of emphasis. That's my understanding, for what it's worth.






His point is also true, insofar as the Daily Show and the Colbert Report make no attempt to be factually accurate. Although they draw on current events to develop their satire, they are in no way limited to factually accurate statements, and they do not provide valid support for all of their arguments. While you are quite correct that satire plays an important role in the media, that role does not include serving as a source of factual, evidence-based argumentation.

Allow me to make a suggestion. These do not strike me as evidence of bias. Rather, the professor is attempting to communicate to you the concept of journalism-specific standards of conduct and analysis. What he is really saying to you is that there is a difference between a source of information and a valid source of information. Backing away from blogs and the Daily Show, which he clearly labels as invalid sources of information for the purposes of the class, what does he present as valid sources of information? What characteristics do these sources of information share? Are these characteristics lacking in the sources he claims are invalid? Why are these characteristics important in discerning the validity of the source? What are the potential consequences of accepting information from sources that are deemed invalid?

As an example from my own field, I conduct independent quantitative data analysis in the area of mental health, social psychology, and aging. When I am writing an article for which I have performed analysis, I have to provide a theoretical background explaining how it fits within existing literature, and how it contributes to furthering the current state of knowledge. Part of this involves citing existing research relevant to the topic. However, I never use sources of information that are not drawn from articles in refereed, peer-reviewed journals, governmental data reports, or other similar sources of information where the data and statistical analysis are openly available and transparent. This ensures that the article, in order to be published, has been rigorously scrutinized by experts in the field, making it very difficult for false or misleading information to make it into the article. Even after that, it is incumbent upon me to read the article carefully and decide whether I am comfortable with its underlying assumptions, data, and argumentation, before I choose to cite it in my own work. Without that initial peer-review process, however, a lot more junk science would make it into publication, greatly increasing the risk that I would end up including false, misleading, or mistaken information into my own work.

I apologize for posting again so quickly, but I thought of a good example that might help explain what he is doing in your class.

I tell my students not to use wikipedia for class research. This is because, by and large, they have a tendency to site it as if wikipedia is the final arbiter for all truth in the universe, when in fact, it was written by some person you don't know, who may or may not know anything about the topic, and may or may not have biased the information presented in some fatally flawed fashion.

Now, the truth is that I use wikipedia in research all the time. So why the double standard? It's simply this. Because I have been conducting research for over 5 years now, I have a fairly good understanding of what wikipedia can and cannot be relied upon to do in my field. It is an excellent source of introductory material to a wide range of topics, and more importantly, articles frequently provide links to more reliable sources of data. Those are the data sources I cite and investigate, rather than wikipedia. However, if I cite wikipedia as a main source of information without understanding where that information originated, as so many of my students have in the past, that information is of unknown quality and value, and is therefore not a valid source of information. I direct them to avoid wikipedia early in their careers because they lack experience in how to use wikipedia appropriately, and in a classroom of 50+ students, it makes more sense from a pedagogical standpoint to force them to locate original sources of information.

Perhaps that is what your professor is intending, and he does not believe that the class as a whole lacks the experience in journalism to correctly discern between what might be valid information in a blog, and what is not, and how to determine which is the case.

I absolutely disagree. Satire is meant to say, hey don't blindly believe in what the media says research what you heard. And that's what I do. Even when watching The Daily Show, I look up everything and read everything to finally make my own conclusion of what is going on.

I am sorry, there are some very valuable blogs out there that make valuable points and even have valuable resources.

I do not think Glen Beck is a very good journalist, I do not think whatever else he named a lot of Fox News people are good journalist. And he uses them as if they are the end all source of news. When they are not. They are more bias then The Daily Show. The Daily Show simply pokes fun at the inconsistency of those kind of journalist.

Kraken, its usually when I have an opinion.

"Today we're going to have the full time to discuss the relationship between, technology and history and how it effects the media. I'd like to hear extensive views on history,"

Teacher, "So, the first question is does technology drive history and historical change?"

[insert student], "I think history is dependent on technology. Without technology history couldn't move, without history technology couldn't move. It effects....[yada yada yada]

"History is assisted by technology, however technology doesn't drive change in history...." [wasn't even finished and he said we had time to full discuss this]

Teacher cutting me off "So you agree with [insert other students name] and are saying the same thing as [insert students name],"

Then he calls on someone else and she gets to go on a giant spiel. I wasn't even finished. She talks a good six minutes and I barely got even a word in.

So then I shut off.

However, there is a difference between an interesting blog and an original source of information. While a blogger may or may not have a valid point about a relevant topic, that point argument is not, in and of itself, evidence. It may be built from evidence, but that begs the question, why aren't you reporting on the evidence, rather than the blog?

Also, I think you are unnecessarily constricting the role of satire, but while satire can point out absurdity in the public or private spheres, you don't really need to cite a satirical production to know that research is necessary, nor is satire itself sufficient to engage in journalism. Satire is satire, not journalism, and the same rules of conduct and ethics do not apply. I suspect Stewart and Colbert would be the first to admit they are not journalists and what they do is not journalism, nor is it an adequate model for journalism.

As an interesting aside, I know several anthropologists, economists, sociologists, and historians who would take issue with your assertion that technology does not drive history. There are entire fields of research built around understanding how the development of agricultural and later industrial technology has fundamentally shaped social processes and patterns.

Now you're making me want to shut off.

Because I completely disagree with the teacher about blogs. Not all blogs have to have the requirements of regular sourcing. I think we should update and be able to use the resources at hand. Not cut a man's hand off. Resources are valuable and shouldn't be destroyed because of personal feelings. How people gain and grab their resources should be up to them, not the teacher.

Oh, certainly, and as I said, blogs play a role in our society. Nothing in his argument or mine suggests blogs are inherently problematic. I would simply argue that it's role is other than as a reliable source of original research. You are not, I would hope, required to agree with him, but if you are going to disagree in class, you will have to be prepared insofar as you will need to be able to accurately and honestly critique his points, and then present your own argument in such a way that it can stand up to his honest critique.

But a lot of his arguments are based on strawman arguments. Where people easily see a point he is making, but I don't see that he has clearly logically outsmarted my thought process because he's pulling strawmen.

It sounds like you're considering this to be an intellectual contest between you and him. That's not what the class is about, and if it becomes that, then he has failed as an educator and you may be missing the point as a student. I cannot speak to the quality of his arguments, but I can tell you that there are many good reasons why a professor might not welcome a blog as a journalistic source of information. This may be something better asked in a private conversation, where the professor is not trying to keep the class flowing on a specific set of topics. Alternatively, you can choose to let it go, as it's possible he's just irritated with what he sees as unsupported opinions masquerading as well-researched journalism. I would imagine that happens on occasion, and professors are no more likely than anyone else to be logical in everything they do.