Deconstruction Example 2

So you've gotten one example and the instructor's take... what follows are two more stories for you to evaluate.

Story 2: Hit and Run Driver (Fox5 New York, 2007)

In this story from a local fox affiliate in New York City, a mother mourns the death of her son in a hit and run accident between a bicycle and a truck. The alleged driver of that truck is also released from jail on the same day. This is a good story for evaluating fairness of the story amongst strong emotions.

Hit and Run Accident FoxNY-audioboost-13974.mp4

After watching this story, evaluate each of the sources:

Then, ask:

  • To what extent does the emotion carried on this tape overwhelm your ability to analyze, intellectually, the information?

  • What is asserted?

  • What is verified?

  • Is this report fair, balanced?

  • How might this story be handicapped by the time constraints of TV?

Tip: Notice that Morales has only been released on bail, not exonerated.

Thinking of this, how reliable is the story?

The Deconstruction Process

Step 1: Summarize the main points of the story

  • When you read a news article or watch a news video clip, think about what the key facts of the story are. Do the facts support the main narrative of the story? If a news headline says your town is plagued by violent crimes, count how many violent crimes are actually mentioned and referenced in the story.

Step 2: Assess the Evidence

  • In this step, the reliability of each piece of evidence is evaluated by looking into how it is verified by the reporter. How much evidence does it have? Is it “direct” or ‘“indirect” evidence?

Step 3: Evaluate the sources

  • Take note of every person quoted in the story and use IMVAIN to evaluate each one. Sources are the ones who gave information to the journalist. If some sources are anonymous, we should be especially careful. The journalist should:

      • Characterize the source by explaining how this person is informed about the story at hand.

      • Corroborate the source’s information with evidence and quotes from other sources that support what the anonymous source said.

      • Be transparent about why the source’s name is not being used, providing a reasonable motivation, such as “the source feared she would lose her job for talking to the press.”

Step 4: Assess the transparency level of the reporter and the news organization

  • How honest are the reporter and the news outlet about what is known and what is not known in a story? Look for language such as: “it is too early to tell how many people were injured”; “it was not possible to independently confirm that information”; “the company did not respond to our requests that it comment on these charges.”

Step 5. Look for context

  • Does the story explain the bigger picture — background information, history, culture, and other things that give an insight into the news event. Context adds depth to the story and provides a better understanding of the issues at large.

Step 6. Are the key questions answered?

  • A good news story should answer the basic 5Ws and H questions in a news story. What happened? To whom? When? Where? Why? How? If any of these key elements is missing, the journalist should provide an explanation. For example, a story about a murder might say it’s not clear when it took place because the police are still investigating and cannot determine the time. That’s understandable.

Step 7. Is the story fair?

  • Steps one through six should give you a pretty good idea about the reliability and the credibility of the news story. But before you conclude whether the coverage is fair or not fair, you should check your own predispositions about the story. Consider whether you’re experiencing cognitive dissonance or having confirmation bias when evaluating the news reports.

Lastly, you should always ask "What can I DO with this information? Is it actionable?"