{"id":42,"date":"2017-02-10T03:57:54","date_gmt":"2017-02-10T03:57:54","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/integrations.pressbooks.network\/webliteracy\/chapter\/go-upstream-to-find-the-source\/"},"modified":"2020-08-27T15:38:40","modified_gmt":"2020-08-27T15:38:40","slug":"go-upstream-to-find-the-source","status":"publish","type":"chapter","link":"https:\/\/integrations.pressbooks.network\/webliteracy\/chapter\/go-upstream-to-find-the-source\/","title":{"raw":"Go Upstream to Find the Source","rendered":"Go Upstream to Find the Source"},"content":{"raw":"Our second move, after [pb_glossary id=\"246\"]finding[\/pb_glossary] previous fact-checking work, is to \"go upstream.\"\u00a0 We use this move if previous fact-checking work was insufficient for our needs.\r\n\r\nWhat do we mean by \"go upstream\"?\r\n\r\nConsider this claim on the conservative site the\u00a0Blaze<\/em>:\r\n\r\n\"Headline\r\n\r\nFigure 6<\/a>\r\n\r\nIs this claim true?\r\n\r\nOf course we can check the credibility of this article by considering the author, the site, and when it was last revised.\u00a0We\u2019ll do some of that, eventually. But it would be ridiculous to do it on this page. Why? Because like most news pages on the web, this one provides no original information. It\u2019s just a rewrite of an upstream page. We see the indication of that here:\r\n\r\n\"Text\r\n\r\nFigure 7<\/a>\r\n\r\nAll the information here has been collected, fact-checked (we hope!), and written up by the Daily Dot<\/em>. It\u2019s what we call \u201creporting on reporting.\u201d There\u2019s no point in evaluating the Blaze\u2019s<\/em> page.\r\n\r\nSo what do we do? Our first step is to go upstream. Go to the original story and evaluate it. When you get to the Daily Dot<\/em>, then you can start asking questions about the site or the source. And it may be that for some of the information in the Daily Dot<\/em> article you\u2019d want to go a step further back and check their primary sources. But you have to start there, not here.","rendered":"

Our second move, after finding<\/a> previous fact-checking work, is to “go upstream.”\u00a0 We use this move if previous fact-checking work was insufficient for our needs.<\/p>\n

What do we mean by “go upstream”?<\/p>\n

Consider this claim on the conservative site the\u00a0Blaze<\/em>:<\/p>\n

\"Headline<\/p>\n

Figure 6<\/a><\/p>\n

Is this claim true?<\/p>\n

Of course we can check the credibility of this article by considering the author, the site, and when it was last revised.\u00a0We\u2019ll do some of that, eventually. But it would be ridiculous to do it on this page. Why? Because like most news pages on the web, this one provides no original information. It\u2019s just a rewrite of an upstream page. We see the indication of that here:<\/p>\n

\"Text<\/p>\n

Figure 7<\/a><\/p>\n

All the information here has been collected, fact-checked (we hope!), and written up by the Daily Dot<\/em>. It\u2019s what we call \u201creporting on reporting.\u201d There\u2019s no point in evaluating the Blaze\u2019s<\/em> page.<\/p>\n

So what do we do? Our first step is to go upstream. Go to the original story and evaluate it. When you get to the Daily Dot<\/em>, then you can start asking questions about the site or the source. And it may be that for some of the information in the Daily Dot<\/em> article you\u2019d want to go a step further back and check their primary sources. But you have to start there, not here.<\/p>\n

definition<\/span>