Deconstructing the News
Lesson 10
Lesson 10
This lesson is the summing up of all of the other lessons, and takes you through the process of deconstructing a piece of news using the tools that have been taught in the previous lessons.
In the context of news literacy, deconstruction means to evaluate the reliability of a news story by looking at seven key steps. Those steps are based on some common-sense questions we should ask about the information we consume, including:
What’s missing?
Who else would I like to hear from?
Where is the evidence to support these claims, assertions?
Why hasn’t the journalist explained more about who this source is and how this source would know?
As you apply the seven steps to a news story, always keep in mind the goal of finding information on which you can rely to make a sound judgment, draw a conclusion, take an action with confidence and share responsibly with others.
Here are the steps we teach students when deconstructing a 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.
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?
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.”
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.”
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.
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.
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?"