Evaluation of General Sources

"World Press Photo Revokes Prize"

URL: nytimes.com. The domain names imply the status of the holder, e.g., dot com is a commercial site, dot edu is an educational site, and so on. The names that seem to be the least credible, based on who the names belong to, are dot name and dot biz, which, at least at this point in our relationship with internet searching, are less recognizable and seen as a new, rather than an established, web presence.

Author: Rachel Donadio. The article provides a link to her profile as an NY Times contributor on their site.

Updates: A correction was posted on the site four days after its publication. There is no further update information. The links on the page include the subject of the article (in this case a photographer), the photographer's subject (an artist), the controversy subject matter itself (digital photo manipulation), and a link which clarifies comments made by people in the article. The links work and led me to the relevant information.

Purpose: The text is trying to inform the audience and does not promote any specific agenda.

Graphics: The only graphic used in the article is the photo at the middle of the controversy.

Position: The source does not seem biased. An error in the first posting was corrected. The World Press Photo does not really profit from the belief that the information is true, but it does retain control of the situation and how the story affects its reputation. Verification is possible, as there are many other articles from different sources on the same topic.

Links: There are no suggested links for further reading; the topical nature of the story is a likely reason. There are quotes from the top people at World Press Photo in the text of the article, most notably the managing director, but no links.

"World Press Photo award withdrawn over violation of rules"

URL: theguardian.com. As mentioned earlier, dot com implies a commercial site. In both cases, the name recognition of the sites, rather than the domain types, are predictive of their credibility.

Author: Angelique Chrisafis. There is a link to her Twitter account, which is less credible than a profile on the news outlet's site, but it does provide more information which can be cross-referenced and thus independently verified.

Updates: No updates are provided. Several working links are provided including the entire gallery of the photo collection featured in the article, the WPP official website, and the facebook page of the photographer who was denied the award.

Purpose: This is an informative piece with no promotional agenda.

Graphics: Relevant graphics of the photos are included.

Position on the subject: The same as the above source.

Links: No suggested further reading.