When it comes to digital media, it can be a bit difficult to determine whether what you’re reading, watching, or listening to is news or opinion. While I have encountered some sites that label their content, others leave it up to the audience to figure out.

For this week’s blogging assignment, I found four articles from different media outlets, decided which are news and which are opinion, and evaluated their credibility.

Let’s dig in!

1. Hulu CEO Randy Freer Out Amid Reorganization

In this article, Natalie Jarvey of The Hollywood Reporter reports on newly announced changes in leadership at Hulu as the streaming service is further integrated into Disney’s direct-to-consumer division.

This is a news article.

Jarvey sticks to the facts on this one. All of the information presented is relevant and verifiable. The article has a neutral tone and Jarvey’s personal thoughts and opinions on the topic are nowhere to be found. She is not trying to tell readers how they should feel about the changes. She’s just letting people know that they’re happening.

One reason to think this piece is credible is that it was published by a long-running, trusted industry publication. A second reason is that it doesn’t involve wild claims, anonymous sources, or speculation. The information included in the piece is factual, with much of it coming directly from statements put out by the parties involved.

2. Streaming Giants Need Shows Like Schoolhouse Rock

In this piece published by Wired, Kelly Kessler shares her thoughts as to why streaming services should be developing more children’s programming with a focus on civics education.

This is an opinion piece.

Kessler clearly wrote this to express her own opinion on a topic she is passionate about. It’s written in the first person and while she backs her argument up with facts, personal anecdotes also play a role. She uses stories from childhood and her experience as a mother to explain why she feels the way she does. Tonally, readers can pick up on Kessler’s frustration and desire for change. There is an explicit call to action here that you don’t see in news articles.

While I think the nature of the piece speaks for itself, I should also note that Wired has it labeled as opinion on its website.

As she is an associate professor of media and cinema studies at DePaul University, this piece strikes me as credible because there’s reason to think Kessler knows what she’s talking about. In a further boost to her credibility, additional sources that back up factual claims and support Kessler’s overall opinion are linked throughout the piece.

3. The Streaming Wars Have Barely Started and They’re Already Exhausting

Next up, Dieter Bohn, Executive Editor for The Verge, gives readers his take on streaming fatigue as more and more streaming services start to roll out.

This is also an opinion piece.

Like the previous example, it is written in the first person. Bohn uses a frank, informal tone. He does not shy away from expressing his lack of excitement about NBC’s upcoming streaming service, Peacock, and the advice he shares for combatting streaming fatigue is his own. Bohn’s point of view is clear throughout the piece and it is tagged as an editorial.

On the credibility front, I have mixed feelings.

I don’t think this piece is entirely unworthy of trust, but there is a big reason to be cautious. The Verge is owned by Vox Media. NBC invests in Vox. Additionally, Vox is producing a show for Quibi, another new streaming service mentioned in the piece. Bohn does disclose this in the third paragraph and the decision not to hide it at the bottom or ignore it altogether gives him some credibility in my eyes. But these financial ties will be something I keep in mind whenever I check out The Verge’s coverage of the various streaming services from now on.

4. Netflix Reports a Subscriber Bump as Disney Poses a New Threat

Finally, the New York Times’ Edmund Lee reports on Netflix’s 2019 fourth quarter earnings figures and comments from Netflix CEO Reed Hastings.

This is another news article.

Most of the information presented in the article comes directly from Netflix’s earnings report and the earnings call with Hastings. Lee doesn’t share his personal thoughts on the numbers or Hastings’ comments. He’s not advocating for anything or trying to tell readers how they should feel. He’s simply relaying new information to those interested.

One reason to find the article credible is that the New York Times has a solid track record for reporting on this kind of news. The brief biography of Lee that’s included at the end of the article also adds credibility as it lets us know that he regularly covers the media industry. To further increase his credibility, Lee could have included links to the full letter to shareholders and transcript of the earnings call. I checked and they’re available here.

There are two issues at the forefront of news regarding broadcast radio:

• The lack or perceived lack of country stations playing female artists
• The mass layoffs of on-air personalities at iHeartMedia’s radio stations.

The following are articles about the lack of female country artists being played on the radio:

• How CMT’s Pledge to Play More Videos by Women Could Influence Country Radio

This Rolling Stone article addresses the recent pledge by CMT (Country Music Television) to play a 50/50 ratio of videos by female and male artists. The article claims that such a publicized gesture could prompt changes to radio programming. According to the radio program directors who responded to Rolling Stone’s question on whether they would change their format to include more women, many claimed that they will make an effort to the extent that the market dictates. As some program directors pointed out, they are in the business of playing hits and cannot predict which songs will become successful. But most agree that they can do more to expose listeners to female country artists.

I feel that this is a credible article by a respected magazine and gives a lot of space to quoting people in the industry, such as Leslie Fram, CEO of CMT and program directors from country stations in various major cities in the United States. The article does not merely state opinion of the author, but gives an overview of the issue and various perspectives of those working in the industry.

• PD: What Kelly Clarkson Said About Country Radio Was Wrong

This article by Radio Ink journalist Ed Ryan features mostly quotes from program directors in major markets. The opinions of the program directors vary, with some agreeing that there needs to be more female representation on country stations and some disagreeing and saying it is the quality of the sings that matter most. Ryan also lists the artists played on their respective stations during a short window of time, with female artists in bold font to highlight the disparity between number of make artists and female artists being played. Where Kelly Clarkson come in is the quote by John O’Connell, program director for WKIS in Miami. He took umbrage to a quote by Kelly Clarkson from her talk show saying that stations are not giving airplay to females.

While Ryan quoted station program directors, I felt that this piece was more an editorial than a news article. The quotes chosen for the article are meant to be polarizing rather than informative. In contrast to the Rolling Stone article, this piece works more as an opinion piece.

The following are articles about iHeartMedia’s layoffs:

• Senator Questions iHeart Layoffs (DAY 2 WITH YOUR COMMENTS)

Rather than providing background about the topic, this Radio Ink article instead posts a letter in its entirety from Senator Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) to iHeartMedia CEO Bob Pittman regarding the recent layoffs of on-air personalities. Senator Brown points to the salary and bonuses of top executives, including Pittman, coming right before the company filed for bankruptcy in 2018.

While almost the entire article is make up of the Senator’s letter, the article presented it without commentary or opinion by the author or Radio Ink. For this reason, I would rate this as news and not opinion.

• iHeartMedia Layoffs Bleed Even More Regionalism Out of Radio

Saving Country Music is a blog created by Kyle ”The Triggerman” Coroneos that covers country music and “roots, rockabilly, bluegrass, blues, and folk music.” This article takes aim at iHeartMedia’s recent decision to lay off hundreds of radio personalities. In Coroneos’ opinion, this will be detrimental to the industry by eliminating the local element that gives listeners a sense of community. As Coroneos states, “they’re replacing employees for algorithms.” Coroneos believe that these layoffs will only save iHeartMedia in the short term.

While this article was more opinion than fact, it was not gratuitous or overly provocative. Coroneos seems passionate about the topic and made good points about the impact these payoffs will have on local and regional entertainment.

Often as media consumers we are challenged with whether the content we are consuming is actually news or opinion. There are times when we clearly know what we are seeking out, yet this distinction should still be recognized. Is this factual news that is being reported or is this the writers expressed opinion? Are we looking for news or are we looking for an opinion. These internal questions should stand as a bases for our further discussion.

When it comes to the world of sports wagering, there is plenty of both news and opinion. Many times these distinctions intersect as writers express opinion within a column that is mainly geared at presenting the facts. Most recently, we have seen much of the news in regard to sports gambling come in on the newly passed legislation in regards to it’s constitutional legality.

On March 14, 2018 The Supreme Court did away with the federal ban on sports betting in which legality was previously restricted to only Nevada. The legislation simply puts the matter in the hands of the state. In this article, ESPN staff writer Ryan Rodenberg gives us a great example of a news article describing the current legal US landscape state by state. He begins with the states where sports betting is legal and congruently ranks states that currently don’t have legal sports betting into how likely they are to pass future legislation allowing it.  Clearly this is a news article as he gives us the lay of the land according to facts.

With new legislation in place, there is the question of what states will pursue sports wagering legislation and what states will be reluctant. In this article CNBC staff writer Bob Woods explains how the future landscape of sports betting in the US is likely to play out. Though the headline and premise may indicate opinion, we clearly see Woods give rationally educated and informed information on which states are pursuing sports betting and the time frame of when that legislation may come into effect. this is reported news as we get a glimpse into where each state is heading with this matter.

The very nature of sports wagering leaves room for a multitude of opinion. You are essentially doing your best to predict the outcome of a future event. No easy task here. Thus, there is a lot of room for opinion. So who’s opinion counts. When it comes to sports gambling media, who’s opinion your listening to does indeed matter. As consumers, we should ensure that the opinions we are taking in are well informed and looking at the sporting event from every angle.

With Super Bowl LIV on the horizon, you can be assured that there is plenty of betting content sizing up the holiday like big game. In this article we get a glimpse of some insightful opinion on some sharp proposition bets (bets that aren’t the normal point spread or game total). Jason Paglia is a writer and content contributor for sportsbook review. He gives some great insights as to why he believes these bets are a good statistical value. Though well written and well informed, this is clearly the writers expressed opinion.

In the world of wagering the smallest edges can be the difference between profits and losses. News and opinion can indeed help shape those profits and losses. Here we encounter an article from CBS staff writer Matt Norlander discussing the marquee Saturday matchups in NCAA men’s basketball. The article is on CBS so it must be news right? Not so fast, as we dive into the content we can clearly see that it is expressed opinion. Also, we get a glimpse of how main stay media companies that were not once associated with betting content are now reaching out to a vast audience that was once overlooked.

So what does this mean for the consumer? It means be skeptical. Know the difference between reported news and opinion and be sure to make the distinction when being a consumer. The very nature of sports betting will facilitate plenty of opinions on sporting events. It is up to you, the bettor, to have all the pertinent news such as injury reports, travel spots etc. Don’t get lost in opinion when you are really seeking out facts.

Francisco Healy

What makes news “news”? Is it the source? The research? The author?
What’s the difference between news and an opinion? Can an opinion be news, or vise versa?
Following in last weeks footsteps, this week we are going to continue with the topic of veganism to get a better idea as to what makes news news-worthy, and what makes opinion articles… opinionated.

News :
This article posted by The Economist discusses the rising interest in Veganism, but what puts it in the category of news? Published in January of 2020, the article begins by focusing on the topic of “Veganuary” – Where people participate in a vegan diet for the month of January in order to start their year with their health as a priority. With timing playing a large part in what makes a news story newsworthy, The Economist chose the right time to publish this article to get the most attention.

In addition to timing, facts are at the forefront of this article. This article is based on statistics from Google, which shows a steady rise in interest in veganism over the past 5 years spanning across 8 countries. The article also references Ipsos MORI, which is a UK based market research company, to show the rising interest in meatless diets across the globe. All statistics mentioned have a clear source listed, and all sources seem to be non biased.

This story is significant and relevant to what people are interested in today. The rise of veganism is something that is talked about often, but not always backed up with statistics. What differentiates The Economist’s article from an opinion based article is that it is not presenting a vegan diet as “good” or “bad”, it is discussing the interest in veganism as statistics have shown it to be.

The reason this article here can be deemed as credible is because The Economist has no association with vegan organizations or companies. The article is not promoting or bashing the lifestyle, they are just simply stating facts and what has impacted this rise in interest.

Moving on,  we’re now going to look at an article posted by BBC discussing a vegan diet’s impact on intelligence. While the vegan diet is often promoted by followers as a way to clear up brain fog and become a sharper thinker, it is rare that these claims are backed up by anything more than personal experience.

This article uses everything from scientific and anthropologic perspectives to modern day statistics and studies. In particular, it references a study conducted by The National Center for Biotechnology Information in which 555 Kenyan schoolchildren were fed either a soup with meat, milk, or oil, or no soup at all, as a midday snack and then were tested on their nonverbal reasoning skills. The article acknowledges that the children fed meat out preformed  the other children, but also brings up the fact that this study would need to be preformed on adults too to get conclusive information.

In addition to the statistics and studies quoted throughout, a food scientist is part of the discussion throughout this article and they provide good information on the nutrients that cannot be gained through any plant based food. BBC builds a great sense of credibility by providing multiple professional standpoints and quoting studies and statistics from all over the world. This article addresses both the possible deficiency and how to substitute for them in a way that is not fear mongering.

But, what makes this article news? As stated previously, plant based diets have risen in popularity tremendously over the last 5 years. People are interested in hearing about veganism and even more so interested in learning about the science behind it either validating or invalidating it. In addition to interest, this article is impactful because of the sheer amount of information it holds.

A lot of what is discussed are parts of a plant based diet that gets very little coverage, so the impact of an article like such is greater than the impact of an article that talks about something such as the environmental benefits of a vegan diet. What makes articles such as this one news is that it is both interesting and thought provoking, sharing new and credible information.

Opinion:

In this article posted by The Spectator, the author’s feelings on why veganism is brave are discussed. Although a meat eater themselves, the author is sympathetic to the struggles a vegan or vegetarian may face from living in a meat eating society. The author openly disagrees with those who fault vegans for sitting in leather chairs or mistakenly using not cruelty free items. In addition, the author in this article brands vegans as brave for facing these rejections and criticisms.

This piece reads as the author’s thought process. The author addresses their feelings towards eating meat, their feelings towards those who don’t eat meat, and their feelings towards those who think negatively of those who don’t eat meat. No statistics or sources are listed, and much of the article reads as a glimpse into the thought process of another person making it not a credible source of information.

What makes this piece an opinion piece is that no new information is being presented, nor does this piece reflect the feelings of everyone working for The Spectator. The article stems from a personal story and develops the authors own train of thought. While it may be an interesting viewpoint on veganism from a person who may have a different background than your own, nothing about it is based in science or fact.

Another opinion based article on veganism is this article addressing the relationship between vegans and farmers posted by The Telegraph. Titled, “The real problem vegans have with farmers is that they don’t want them to exist”, it’s already rather clear that this article is not based on evidence or facts. The author goes on to discuss that he feels there needs to be respect and understanding amongst vegans and farmers, and that he feels farmers can never “do enough” to satisfy vegans.

What makes this clearly an opinion piece, is that there is no way to show that all vegans have an issue with farming or choose to follow a vegan diet for animal rights reasons. Social media is discussed as a reasoning for the tension between farmers and vegans, but the author never mentions having any backings for these claims. In addition, the author does not mention having any sort of degree or experience that would make them a credible source to be making comments on veganism and farming.

This article could not be called a credible source of information on the issues between vegans and farmers, because the author is making assumptions on the vegan community and not providing evidence to support these claims. In addition, much like the last article this is reflective of one person’s perspective not the perspective of The Telegraph as a company.

Conclusion :

Overall, telling an opinion article apart from a news article is not always simple. Looking for non biased pieces with statistical information and credible sources is a good way to decipher opinion from credible news. When discussing veganism in particular, the strong feelings people have on the topic from all angles often add an extra level of difficulty when trying to figure out what is real and what is not. In the end, getting our information from people and places we trust to show us both sides of the argument is almost always what is best.

Minority finance: What Andrew Yang, marijuana, and cashless restaurants have in common

I’ve been observing how financial literacy for minorities is presented in the media.

If you’re interested in why I chose to follow this topic, check out last week’s post, How is financial literacy for minorities presented in the media?

What’s the goal this week? Find four parcels of media relating to minority financial literacy and determine if they are news, opinion, or analysis.

The pickings were slim for current and relevant news, but here’s what I found…

In Colorado, regulators are pushing for social equity in the medical marijuana industry. The Denver Post published, What is social equity in Colorado’s cannabis industry? Regulators look to level the playing field for marginalized communities.

If you’re not sure how social equity is related to the cannabis industry I’d suggest that you read the above article first and then check out this one written by yours truly back in 2015.

TLDR?

“In many ways the imagery doesn’t sit right. Here are white men poised to run big marijuana businesses, dreaming of cashing in big—big money, big businesses selling weed—after 40 years of impoverished black kids getting prison time for selling weed, and their families and futures destroyed. Now, white men are planning to get rich doing precisely the same thing?” – Michelle Alexander attorney and author of The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness. (Source)

The verdict? ANALYSIS, CREDIBLE.

• • • The article explains what’s happening and why making it an analysis.
    • The author’s opinion is not present.
    • The Denver Post makes its ethics policy available to the public.
    • Article links to several reputable sources to support claims.
    • The author is named. She has a degree in journalism from Southern Methodist University and according to her bio covers the “Colorado cannabis industry, including marijuana and hemp policy and reform, market trends, and entertainment.”
    • Readers can contact the author via Twitter and email.

Next, I shifted to the Presidential candidate’s economic plans for minorities. I found Andrew Yang poised and shining in the following video: Andrew Yang talks stereotypes, economic policies at dinner with voters ABC News.

In the 20-minute video, Yang sits down for dinner with ABC’s Linsey Davis and three undecided voters to answer their questions. Of course, Yang discusses his Freedom Dividend and how he believes it will alleviate the physical and mental stresses of poverty, create jobs, and stimulate local economies.

The verdict? NEWS, CREDIBLE. 

• • • ABC shares what happened without analysis or interpretation, making it news. Viewers are free to watch the video and draw their own conclusions from the discussion.
    • Linsey Davis is a correspondent for ABC news with an extensive body of work listed in her bio. Davis holds a degree in psychology from the University of Virginia and a Master of Arts degree in communications from New York University.
    • Readers can contact the author via Facebook, Twitter, and email.
    • Andrew Yang and the citizens in the footage are sharing their opinions, but ABC is sharing the video as news without their opinion, Davis remains neutral in the conversation.
    • Slightly concerning – I could not easily locate ABC’s ethics policy online.

I also discovered that Dave Chappelle endorses Andrew Yang for president: ‘I’m Yang Gang!’.

If you’d like to know why Dave Chappelle endorsed Yang and how it’s related to financial literacy for minorities read, ‘Health insurance is great, but groceries are necessary too’: Dave Chappelle champions Andrew Yang’s Universal Basic Income at Iowa appearance.

https://www.instagram.com/p/B77WDy8Hvxj/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link

The verdict? NEWS, CREDIBLE.  

• • • Again, this article feature on Business Insider reports what happened without attempting to explain why it happened or what it means.
    • The author is the Senior Politics Reporter at Business Insider and holds degrees in History from St. Mary’s College of Maryland and an MSc in International Relations from the University of Glasgow according to his bio.
    • Readers can contact the author via Twitter.
    • The Business Insider makes its ethics policy available to readers.

Last, but not least: How Cashless Restaurants Reinforce Systemic Racism

The author shares a single experience with cashless restaurants as an introduction to legislation banning cashless businesses. The article explains how minority communities are under-banked with less access to debit and credit cards and therefore excluded from patronizing cashless businesses.

The verdict? OPINION, DO YOU RESEARCH.  

• • • GQ is not a go-to source for financial news.
    • The author’s bio is brief without contact information; links to a page of his other work for GQ, but does not provide information about the author’s qualifications.
    • The author shares personal experiences and uses ambiguous language. Describing urban neighborhoods as, “the hip ones where stores boast Uber pick-up stations and iPad cash-registers.”
    • Read an opinion on the other side of the same topic HERE, both make good points.

What access you’ve had to news and media about financial literacy in the past few weeks? Who are your go-to sources for financial literacy and news? Feel free to share them in the comments.

Depending on where you look, news on fantasy TV shows is actually very easy to find. It’s when you add the word “women” into the mix that it gets difficult. Sure, there are a ton of opinion pieces on it, but not a lot of actual news. After some digging however, I found some.

Doctor Who, a show notorious for it’s male lead character, introduced a woman as the lead a few years back. Doctor Who is once again making news with the introduction of a black woman as the lead.

The reason this is considered news, and not opinion, is it is reporting on an actual fact. This is something that is actually happening, there is no room for an opinion as to whether or not it is or is not happening.

I trust this source because it simply states the facts. It tells the audience what happened, and nothing more.

It took a lot of searching and digging to find this article. I finally settled on this one, and was happy with it. This article, titled “How Fantasy TV Shows Are Making Heroes Out of Women of Color,” talks all about how women of color are getting their chance to shine in the fantasy genre.

I classify this article as news over opinion for a few reasons. The first reason being, it really does only report on the facts. It talks about different TV shows that feature women of color as the lead character, or at least one of them.

The other reason, is that there is no opinion as to how the writer feels, or how other people feel, about women of color taking more lead roles. There is only reporting on the facts. The facts are, fantasy TV is becoming more diverse.

I do think this is a credible source. I trust Vice, and often read a lot of their pieces. With this article specifically, there is not a lot of fact checking that needs to be done to see that everything in the article is correct. It is a very credible site with very credible information.

Opinion articles for this topic were almost  too easy to find. A lot of them were “Top Female Fantasy Characters,” which is exactly what my first article for an opinion is. Titled, “The 25 Best Female Characters of the Past 25 Years” this article is exactly what it sounds like.

The reasoning this is an opinion article, is well because the entire list is the opinion of the writers and staff that created the article. This list features characters that they believe to be the best, not that factually are the best.

Syfy is credible to me, at least for anything TV related. Fantasy TV is kind of Syfy’s specialty, so it would be hard for them to lie about things. Especially with opinion articles, Syfy is the best.

It would have been really easy to find another list article for my next one, but I decided it would be more fun to do a little digging and find a different kind of opinion article. This one is about a specific episode of a show, and how the writer felt that it was a feminist journey.

Titled “The Magicians Reclaims Margo’s Journey as a Feminist Journey” this article is classified as an opinion/analysis piece. The reasoning for this is because the entire thing is the writer giving their opinion of the episode. The opinion of the writer is also shown when labeling the episode as feminist.

This article is, once again from Syfy, so you already know why I believe it is credible. Syfy is always credible when it comes to fantasy TV. Especially the author of this one, she has tons of articles written about this sort of thing.