Ga-Maleven<\/p>\n\n\n\n
While there are many bad cops that have murdered innocents, have killed dogs, have been racist, rude, and abusive, the fact is that is not all <\/em>police. There are many police officers who do their job, do their job well, and even go above and beyond to help others. The real problem lies in that police officers are not receiving enough training, are not even being kept to a certain standard of fitness or intellect, and hateful people are allowed on the police force. Some more information on searching online. Just because something isn’t from a scholarly article or a specific university doesn’t mean it’s not true. Many websites that are not scientific, etc. still have accurate information due to them properly gathering it from the proper sources. To see if what these non scholarly websites are posting is true can be backed up by finding scholarly websites with the same information, and\/or checking if websites you that can be trusted are posting the same information Wikipedia is not a good place to check for anyone can make a change. Wikipedia tends to be true must of the time, but don’t always trust it. Check the sources listed at the bottom of each wikipedia page and do your own searching.
There are so many overweight and otherwise unhealthy police officers, which raises many alarm bells as to why. Police officers should be fit to be able to run down, capture, and hold down a fleeing suspect so they do not have to – hopefully – resort to other measures. While the need to use guns is necessary, and dealing with people who just about anyone could try and kill you, officers do need to be trained on how to better read people, and to always try to use tasers or pepper spray first to diffuse a situation. This is true for when handling humans as well as non-human animals. Many officers will kill dogs either out of breedism, or because they do not know how to properly handle a scared canine.
And the only way to stop the blind hate and ignorance of humans is to continue to educate them. While people can be scanned to hopefully ensure racists and other hateful people don’t become officers, they can still lie or later develop it. We must stop the hate and ignorance at it’s source which is achieved through education. Especially with the children.
But, despite all of this and the work that needs to be done, police are still authority, they are still working on keeping the peace and people safe, and we need to respect them. If you are confronted by an officer who is making you uncomfortable and you truly believe them to be a corrupt cop, call 9-1-1 and keep them on the line until another officer can come and help diffuse the situation. But don’t assume that simply because they are a cop that they automatically are out to get you. Obey what they say, keep your hands where they can see them, be polite, and cooperate. They have no idea who you are, and given how many people are more than willing to kill an officer, they are ready to assume you could be reaching for a weapon to harm them.
While it is your right to film an officer (and be sure to inform you that they are being filmed), do not act above the law or be rude to them. They are pulling you over or knocking on your house for a reason 99% of the time. Cooperate, be polite, keep your hands where they can see, and do not instigate anything. When you behave they can finish up with giving you a ticket, warning, or whatever, and then that is the sooner they will leave you alone. And if you do behave and cooperate, that is more likely you will only receive a warning rather than an actual ticket.
Most importantly, do not be a sovereign citizen. Sovereign citizens is a movement basically aimed at ignoring police authority, laws, and believing themselves above authority. They even will go out and purposely kill police officers. Some of the things they say are… I think insane is an understatement. They call cars “means of transportation” and tell police that they are “public servants” who are supposed to “serve” citizens of a country, but do not have authority over sovereign citizens. They claim to be “citizens of the Earth” but not to any country so therefore do not need to uphold to the laws of that country despite being in it. Simply go on Youtube, search for “sovereign citizens,” and you will be bombarded with hundreds of videos of them fighting the police, going on rants, and making simple traffic stops hell for officers. I will share a few below.
Another thing, only call 9-1-1 if you have an emergency. Do not call to prank, complain, or get an officer’s number to date them. 9-1-1 is for emergencies only, and bothering them for something that isn’t an emergency can cost you fines or even jail time.
Last thing I will touch on in this article is handling fake news sites and articles. Since I am not sure how I can share PDF files on a journal, I will copy and paste below a wonderful paper one of my college professors provides to her class before having us conduct research on our papers:
\u201cFAKE NEWS\u201d: HOW YOU CAN KEEP THE EPIDEMIC OF UNVERIFIABLE CLAIMS,
CONSPIRACY THEORIES, AND OUTRIGHT LIES FROM MAKING YOUR WRITING ONE
MORE UNRELIABLE RESOURCE
<\/strong>
Mark Twain supposedly wrote \u201cA lie can get halfway around the world while the truth is still
putting its shoes on.\u201d (Actually, there\u2019s no evidence that Twain wrote this statement; and even if
he did, he\u2019d have to amend it radically for the Internet age.) The point of the pseudo-Twain
quotation is clear: falsehood spreads rapidly, and the corrective truth has a difficult time stopping
its roll.
As we have discussed this term, writing has an ethical dimension; a cardinal principle of that
ethical dimension is \u201ctell the truth.\u201d A writer must be aware that readers believe what they
read, unless they have clear indications that the writing is fictional, satirical, or otherwise
intentionally built around imaginative creations.
Hence the recent anguish and brouhaha over \u201cfake news.\u201d Initially, \u201cfake news\u201d was intended to
refer to writing that presents itself as verifiably factual, but that is not based in fact (for example,
the \u201cnews\u201d story that claimed Hillary Clinton was running a prostitution ring out of a Northeast
DC pizza joint, drawing a heavily-armed one-man \u201ctruth squad\u201d to invade the pizza joint to
\u201cself-investigate\u201d). However, the term has since been so thoroughly politicized that it no longer
means what it means.
Whatever term you want to use for it, the problem of \u201cfake news\u201d is real, and growing. Since so
much of social media depends on re-posting, re-tweeting, pinning and sharing, even a satirical
article quickly loses its context and becomes a random bit of \u201cnews.\u201d A purposely false article
planted to influence political views or to sell a product can go viral in minutes and takes on
validity simply because it seems to be everywhere.
Unless you intend to be deceptive (and of course you would not!), don\u2019t become part of the web
of falsehoods. Here are some suggestions to help you break the chain of fools:
\u2022 NEVER share a story on the web that you have not verified, especially if it comes from a
source that you\u2019re unfamiliar with (or that you know to be untrustworthy).
\u2022 NEVER include unverified information in an academic paper, a work document, or
other important writing. Not only will you avoid being embarrassed, but you will also
avoid the danger of having your error picked up by your boss or colleagues and
potentially embarrassing them. (Shaming the boss never ends well.)
\u2022 CHECK any story with at least two known reputable sources, preferably from different
areas of the political spectrum; for example, I routinely check both The New York
Times and The Wall Street Journal when I see a sketchy piece of political reporting.
\u2022 AVOID using known hair-trigger news outlets as your verification sites, even if they are
otherwise reputable. Both CNN and Fox News, for example, have a history of posting
first and verifying later.
\u2022 RESIST the urge to post anything that may be gossip, rumor, urban legend, or
conspiracy theory without first checking it out with snopes.com.
\u2022 DON\u2019T FALL FOR CLICKBAIT! Clickbait sites tease you with outlandish headlines,
sexy photos and provocative questions so they can get paid when you click through to
their sites. Clickbait sites are a huge waste of your time, and they sometimes open your
computer or device to malware or digital annoyances.
\u2022 BE A HERO and flag stories as \u201cunverifiable and probably false\u201d once you\u2019ve done your
research. If the story was originally meant as satire or fiction, you can share that
contextual information.
To give you additional tips on how to spot unverifiable claims or decontextualized satire, you can
look at the handout that begins on the next page. The author, Melissa Zimdars, runs a site called
Opensources.co, where she and her colleagues evaluate websites and tell you what type of false,<\/mark>
misleading, satirical, clickbait-y or otherwise problematic reading material is housed there.
Zimdars gives you useful clues to help identify bogus or untrustworthy news sources and provides
a useful taxonomy of \u201clies and the lying liars who tell them\u201d (the title of a book by Senator Al
Franken of Minnesota, formerly a well known comedian). She also shares the multi-step process
that she and her colleagues go through when evaluating a web source.
False, Misleading, Clickbait-y, and\/or Satirical \u201cNews\u201d Sources.
A resource by Melissa Zimdars, assistant professor of communications and media at
Merrimack College, who heads Opensources.co, a project that evaluates web-based \u201cnews\u201d
sources.
Tips for analyzing news sources:<\/strong>
\u25cf Avoid websites that end in \u201clo\u201d ex: Newslo (Newslo is now found at Politicops.com). These sites
take pieces of accurate information and then packaging that information with other false or
misleading \u201cfacts\u201d (sometimes for the purposes of satire or comedy).
\u25cf Watch out for common news websites that end in \u201c.com.co\u201d as they are often fake versions of real
news sources (remember: this is also the domain for Colombia!)
\u25cf Watch out if known\/reputable news sites are not also reporting on the story. Sometimes lack of
coverage is the result of corporate media bias and other factors, but there should typically be
more than one source reporting on a topic or event.
\u25cf Odd domain names generally equal odd and rarely truthful news.
\u25cf Lack of author attribution may, but not always, signify that the news story is suspect and requires
verification.
\u25cf Some news organizations are also letting bloggers post under the banner of particular news
brands; however, many of these posts do not go through the same editing process (ex: BuzzFeed
Community Posts, Kinja blogs, Forbes blogs).
\u25cf Check the \u201cAbout Us\u201d tab on websites or look up the website on Snopes or Wikipedia for more
information about the source.
\u25cf Bad web design and use of ALL CAPS can also be a sign that the source you\u2019re looking at should
be verified and\/or read in conjunction with other sources.
\u25cf If the story makes you REALLY ANGRY it\u2019s probably a good idea to keep reading about the topic
via other sources to make sure the story you read wasn\u2019t purposefully trying to make you angry
(with potentially misleading or false information) in order to generate shares and ad revenue.
Thanks to Ed Brayton for this tip!
\u25cf If the website you\u2019re reading encourages you to DOX individuals, it\u2019s unlikely to be a legitimate
source of news.
\u25cf It\u2019s always best to read multiple sources of information to get a variety of viewpoints and media
frames. Sources such as The Daily Kos, The Huffington Post, and Fox News vacillate between
providing important, legitimate, problematic, and\/or hyperbolic news coverage, requiring readers
and viewers to verify and contextualize information with other sources.
\u25cf For more tips on analyzing the credibility and reliability of sources, please check out School
Library Journal (they also provide an extensive list of media literacy resources) and the Digital
Resource Center.
OpenSources Steps for Analyzing Websites:<\/strong>
Step 1:<\/strong> Title\/Domain Analysis. If words like \u201c.wordpress\u201d or \u201cblogger\u201d are in the domain that usually
signifies it\u2019s a personal blog rather than a news source. If slight variations of well known websites appear,
such as \u201c.com.co,\u201d this is usually a sign that the website is fake version of a source. However, remember
that foreign reputable news organizations may have these country-specific domains.
Step 2:<\/strong> About Us Analysis. I usually google every title\/domain name\/anyone listed in the \u201cAbout Us\u201d
section to see if anyone has previously reported on the website (snopes, hoax-slayer, politifact,
factcheck.org, etc.) or whether it has a wikipedia page or something similar detailing its background. This
is useful for identifying and correctly interpreting lesser known and\/or new websites that may be on the
up-and-up, such as satirical sources or websites that are explicit about their political orientation.
Then I look for information about the credentials and backgrounds of affiliated writers (is it a content mill
or do they pay their writers?), editors, publishers, and domain owners (who.is etc.). It\u2019s also useful to see
if the website has a \u201cLegal\u201d or \u201cDisclaimer\u201d section. Many satirical websites disclose this information in
those sections.
A total lack of About Us, Contact US, or any other type of identifying information may mean that the
website is not a legitimate source of information.
Step 3:<\/strong> Source Analysis. Does the website mention\/link to a study or source? Look up the source\/study.
Do you think it\u2019s being accurately reflected and reported? Are officials being cited? Can you confirm their
quotes elsewhere? Some media literacy and critical scholars call this triangulation: Verify details, facts,
quotes, etc. with multiple sources.
Step 4:<\/strong> Writing Style Analysis. Does the website follow AP Style Guide or another style guide? Typically,
lack of style guide may indicate an overall lack of editing or fact-checking process. Does it frequently use
ALL CAPS in headlines and\/or body text? Does the headline or body of the text use words like WOW!,
SLAUGHTER!, DESTROY!? This stylistic practice and these types of hyperbolic word choices are often
used to create emotional responses with readers that is avoided in more traditional styles of journalism.
Step 5:<\/strong> Aesthetic Analysis. Like the style-guide, many fake and questionable news sites utilize very bad
design. Usually this means screens are cluttered with text and heavy-handed photoshopping or born
digital images.
Step 6:<\/strong> Social Media Analysis. Look up the website on Facebook. Do the headlines and posts rely on
sensational or provocative language– aka clickbait– in order to attract attention and encourage likes,
clickthroughs, and shares? Do the headlines and social media descriptions match or accurately reflect the
content of the linked article? (this step isn\u2019t particularly good at helping us find fake news, but it can help
us identify other misleading news sources)
By considering all of these areas of information we can determine which category or categories a
website may occupy, although all categorizations are by necessity open to discussion and revision.
Website Labels for OpenSources.co:
[Note inserted by Lynne Scott Constantine: Opensources.co uses these labels and tags as a way to
define and distinguish the various types of problematic news sources and the nature of these
sources\u2019 approach to \u201creporting.\u201d The labels offer a sophisticated taxonomy of the many ways
that web information can be unreliable.]
Fake News (tag fake): Sources that entirely fabricate information, disseminate deceptive content, or
grossly distort actual news reports.
Satire (tag satire): Sources that use humor, irony, exaggeration, ridicule, and false information to
comment on current events.
Extreme Bias (tag bias): Sources that come from a particular point of view and may rely on
propaganda, decontextualized information, and opinions distorted as facts.
Conspiracy Theory (tag conspiracy): Sources that are well-known promoters of kooky conspiracy
theories. Ex: 9\/11 conspiracies, chem-trails, lizzard people, birther, flat earth, flouride, vaccines as mind
control etc.
Rumor Mill (tag rumor): Sources that traffic in rumors, gossip, innuendo, and unverified claims.
State News (tag state): Sources in repressive states operating under government sanction.
Junk Science (tag junksci): Sources that promote pseudoscience, metaphysics, naturalistic fallacies,
and other scientifically dubious claims.
Hate News (tag hate): Sources that actively promote racism, misogyny, homophobia, and other forms
of discrimination.
Clickbait (tag clickbait): Sources that provide generally credible content, but use exaggerated,
misleading, OR questionable headlines, social media descriptions, and\/or images. These sources may
also use sensational language to generate interest, clickthroughs, and shares, but their content is typically
verifiable.
Proceed With Caution (tag unreliable): Sources that may be reliable but whose contents require
further verification or to be read in conjunction with other sources.
*Political (tag political): Sources that provide generally verifiable information in support of certain
points of view or political orientations.
*Credible (tag reliable): Sources that circulate news and information in a manner consistent with
traditional and ethical practices in journalism (Remember: even credible sources sometimes rely on
clickbait-style headlines or occasionally make mistakes. No news organization is perfect, which is why a
healthy news diet consists of multiple sources of information).
Unknown (tag unidentified): Sources that have not yet been analyzed (many of these were suggested
by readers\/users or are found on other lists and resources). Help us expand our resource by providing us
information!
Note: Tags like political and credible are being used for two reasons: 1.) they were suggested by viewers
of the document or OpenSources and circulate news 2.) the credibility of information and of organizations
exists on a continuum, which this project aims to demonstrate. For now, mainstream news organizations
are not included because they are well known to a vast majority of readers.
_______________________________________________________________________
Bio:<\/strong>
I [Melissa Zimdars] am an assistant professor of communication & media, and this resource started as a
tool for teaching my students about journalism\/social media\/media literacy.
Disclaimer:<\/strong> All of the contents in this document reflect the opinion of the author(s) and are for educational purposes
only.
Updates & Notes:<\/strong>
Some people are asking which news sources I trust, and all I can say is that I read\/watch\/listen very
widely, from mainstream, corporate owned sources (The New York Times, The Washington Post, The
Boston Globe, The Wall Street Journal, Forbes) as well as The Atlantic, National Public Radio, and
various local and alternative sources with different political perspectives (Truth-Out) some of which are
included on this list. The problem: Even typically reliable sources, whether mainstream or alternative,
corporate or nonprofit, rely on particular media frames to report stories and select stories based on
different notions of newsworthiness. The best thing to do in our contemporary media environment is to
read\/watch\/listen widely and often, and to be critical of the sources we share and engage with on social
media.”
<\/p>\n\n\n\n
To properly search, try not to be logged in to your Google account if you search with Google, or your Yahoo account if you search with Yahoo. Being signed in your accounts can cause your search results to change. When doing a search, remember that it works by scouring the internet for the keywords you use. The more precise and more words you use the better you have at getting what you want.
Some digital libraries that contain historical papers, newspapers, etc. that can be used for researching many different subjects are listed here:
Digital Public Library<\/a><\/span>
Haithi Trust<\/a><\/span>
Google Scholar<\/a><\/span>
WorldCat<\/a><\/span>
JSTOR<\/a><\/span>
You can also learn more about a website to see if it’s legit\/trustworthy by using these websites: Way Back Machine<\/a><\/span> and WhoIS<\/a><\/span>.
One more thing: Just because something is “peer reviewed” doesn’t mean it’s the most accurate or up-to-date article. To peer review something, all it takes is even one of he three or so people reviewing it to disagree despite the evidence and then that throws everything off. And peer reviewing a source takes months to even years, so it isn’t very accurate in terms of keeping up with other studies. This is why scientists are trying to get rid of it<\/a><\/span>.
<\/p>\n\n\n\n