In this lesson we talk about the seven steps of news deconstruction. These steps are the culmination of our news literacy curriculum. And you'll be applying all of the concepts and news evaluation methods you've learnt in the previous weeks. Step number one is: 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? Say for example, a news headline says your community is plagued by violent crimes. Count how many violent crimes are actually mentioned and referenced in the story. If a news anchor says smartphones might make us less intelligent, pay attention to what the basis of that claim is in the video. By now you should know the difference between good and sloppy journalism. This first step is very important to identify bad journalism. We see many headlines and anchors' news introductions that are written mostly just to entice the audience. They tend to be provocative and sensational. It's not bad at all, if the key facts in the story really support the main narrative promised at the beginning. But if it doesn't, we need to question the quality of the news report. Step two: assess the evidence. I hope you still remember this spectrum we used when we discussed evidence in news stories. In this step, we weigh the reliability of each piece of evidence by looking into how it's verified by the reporter. How much evidence does it have? Is it direct or indirect evidence? Does the story describe a certainty or a possible scenario based on the evidence? These are the questions you need to be asking in this step. Step three: evaluate the sources. You take note of every single person in the story and run the IMVAIN source analysis on each one. Sources are the ones who gave information to the journalist. The audience needs to assess how reliable they are. If some sources are anonymous we should be especially careful. You should see if the story gives a satisfactory explanation as to why they're not named, which leads us to the next step. Step four: access the transparency level of the reporter and the news organization. In this step, we question how transparent the reporter and the news outlet is. For example, if a reporter gets some information from a press release, does it say so in the story? Is there a link to the original release if it's a web article? If a story is reviewing a certain new product, does the story say where the reporter got that product from? Did the manufacturer send the review product or did the news outlet buy it at its own expense? If it's a review product, does the story say whether the reporter will keep the product or return it? If the story is about a company that's affiliated with a news outlet in one way or another, does the story make it clear with proper disclosure? In other words, is the news organization being transparent about the possible conflict of interest. In this step, we gauge how honest the reporter and the news outlet is in order to determine their journalistic integrity. Step five: look for the context. In this step, we try to see whether the story explains the bigger picture - background information, history, culture, and other things that give an insight into the news event. For example, this picture of a Chinese toddler chained to a pole in the street became news in 2010. These three articles all published the shocking image. At a first glance the photo is seems to show cruel parenting. Some people shared the images on social media with condemnation. But if you look for the context in this story, you realized that the father who chained his son was afraid of losing him in the street while the father was working. According to the interview in one of the articles, his daughter disappeared in the past and he didn't want that to happen again. That's the context. Another context to look for in this example would be a bigger picture. How many more parents and children are in this situation in this city in China? Isn't there a daycare system in the city that could accommodate everyone? Context adds depth to the story and provides a better understanding of the issue at large. Step six, look for missing key information. A good news story should answer all the basic questions such as what happened, when and where did it happen, who was involved, how did it happen and why it happened. We should be able to find answers to these basic five Ws and one H questions in a news story. If you find any of these key elements missing, which is more often than you might think, you should try to find the explanation for it. Say, for example, the 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. But, if the story doesn't transparently tell you why the reporter couldn't get certain key information, then we need to pay attention to the gap. And if possible, look for the answer by ourselves. Step seven, decide if the story is fair while questioning the possible bias on your end. This final step goes beyond the coverage. Step one through six should have given 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 wonder if you're experiencing cognitive dissonance. Or having confirmation bias when evaluating the news reports. We previously discussed how to deal with out own biases in great detail, and that's what you need to do in the final step. So here are the seven steps in one slide. The whole point of the deconstruction exercise is to systematically apply the news literacy skills and techniques before you take any action based on the information in the news report.
