Tuesday, February 5, 2013


¡Welcome!




For this project, our team analyzed the hot topic issue of immigration and how news media outlets such as Fox have saturated their programs with large amounts of “truthiness” when covering key topics. For example, Poltifact tells us that illegal immigration from Mexico is actually down. From watching today’s news however, many of us have the perception that the borders are crawling with immigrants and that the mailman that says ‘hola’ as he passes by is actually an illegal alien.

While news organizations and journalists are bound to the Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics and are asked to seek the truth and report it, this doesn’t always happen. In class we watched comparisons between news outlets like CNN, MSNBC, and FOX and saw how easy it is for bias to creep into stories. With so much misleading information out there, it is up to us to pull out our “crap detectors” and find what is true and accurate.

In the quick video below it shows us just how much FOX news knows. Really, illegal immigration is illegal? We never would have guessed.


Jim McManus, author of Detecting Bull, has provided us with ways to better spot BS—and we don’t mean bald sophistry.  When things start to smell a little fishy, McManus suggests we use his SMELL test:

S: What is the source?
M: What is the motivation of your source?
E: What evidence to the sources have for their story?
L: Does the logic even make sense?
L: What is left out or missing?

To better distinguish truth from truthiness we’ve crafted a SMELL scale that based off of McManus’ guidelines will help us better rate and categorize each of our videos as we evaluate the accuracy and ethics of each. The simple scaling system will also help us present the concluding results in a neat little graph.

Remember the higher the number, the higher amount of truth!

1: Blatantly false; the information presented contains high doses of truthiness; the sources are unknown or lack credentials; claims have no evidence and facts cannot be proven; logic is missing altogether; may also contain heavy amounts of mud-slinging and name calling.

2:Mostly truthiness; the sources are questionable; evidence and facts have some truth to them, but still remain sketchy; logic does not correlate; other sides of the argument are looked at as mere opinions.

3: Equal amounts of truth and truthiness; sources are still wishy-washy; evidence and facts are mostly accurate but may still need to be proven; logic corresponds with main ideas but may leave out areas of importance; opposing opinions and bias are either unclear or not present.

4:Truth overrides truthiness; sources are good but may still contain some bias; evidence and facts have little or no gaps; logic is presented with common sense; opinions are accurate but may be altered through framing or presentation.

5: Let there be truth; sources are unbiased and present qualified credentials; evidence and facts are all correct; logic fits well with information and backs up facts; other sides and opinions are portrayed fairly.

Using this structure we will explore ideas pertaining to Arizona’s immigration law, President Barack Obama’s DREAM Act, and disillusions with crime that are usually associated with immigrants.

Click the tabs to follow our journey as we define the border between truth and truthiness.

Meanwhile, lets remember where most of us started out...