Skip to Main Content

Media Literacy

What Are New and Traditional Media?

In the context of this guide, Traditional Media and New Media are the terms used to describe the avenues and outlets that people use as information sources that serve more social or media-based purposes than general websites. Specifically:

  • Traditional Media references news-based sources of information that have been well established regardless of their medium. These forms of media typically must adhere to appropriate government regulations (where applicable) and have established professional standards/ethics practices, although this doesn't always guarantee the reliability of an outlet or an individual source/story.  
  • New Media references social or media-based information sources that are increasing in popularity and are establishing their place in the information ecosystem (regardless of when the media was technically created). Regulations and/or ethical/professional standards (as are often present for Traditional Media sources) may not exist or may be easier to avoid with New Media sources, although good reporting does occur in this landscape.

Baseline Strategies

Overall, many of the strategies listed in the Evaluation Techniques and Strategies section can be used as baselines for evaluating these types of sources. This page is to provide some extra advice on approaching this category of media as a whole. But to get you started, here are three helpful links:

Traditional & New Media Evaluation Techniques

1. Assess the Tone

There are a few main factors here. Initially, consider whether or not your source is even meant to be taken seriously. Is this from a source that has a reputation for satire? Is this from a source that is solely meant to entertain you? Keep in mind, though, that entertaining or even informal-sounding sources can be credible if they focus on good reporting (see point 4, below).

Also keep in mind that a overly serious, angry, or negative tone may not necessarily be indicative of a topic that is serious enough to warrant the tone (although it might): this sort of tone may instead be indicative of a person or an outlet engaging in fear-mongering or rage-baiting. That is, the person or company reporting the information may be trying to make you feel upset, sad, worried, scared, or angry enough that you don't ask questions or engage in rational thought. Instead, you take the bait and believe the story they have presented to you.

2. Consider the Number of People Checking This

Could an entire news organization be held accountable (e.g., have their broadcasting license threatened or their paper sued for libel) or is it one individual's personal social media account that is spreading this information? While more eyes on a source doesn't always mean more honesty, it can mean higher stakes for the organization and a different approach to tackling the information presented.

3. Look for a Sign if This is an Opinion

Does this source have the words "op-ed", "opinion editorial", "opinion contributor", or something akin to the phrase "these statements reflect the author's personal beliefs and do not reflect the perspective of the newspaper"? While there are other clues to tell whether or not you're looking at an opinion (note: all reviews are opinions), if you see some variation of these words or phrases chances are you're looking at an opinion. Keep in mind that some opinion pieces have authors who take the time to cite their sources quite well: they will situate their arguments in facts, data points, and will reference or link out to appropriate information. But not every opinion piece will do this, and some will sound quite authoritative and may link out to sources but will misrepresent the information within. So while a source being an opinion piece isn't a reason to discount it immediately as an information object, you should look at it with a bit more scrutiny. And if your purpose is to stick to pieces that are solely based on reporting then you should pass by the opinion pieces.

4. Take into Account the Source's Bias AND Credibility

Credibility and bias exist on two different spectrums. Everyone has their own lens through which they view the world (their bias), and everyone has their own propensity for reporting or withholding the facts (their credibility).

This means that you should not assume that someone is not being credible just because their beliefs and bias are different than yours. It also doesn't mean that you should just accept information that appeals to your established beliefs even if you feel like the source is iffy or just didn't feel like checking out an unknown source further.

The most important part: Look into the history of the source you're examining to see if they have a history of factual and credible reporting, and see where they stand on the issues that you care about. This will help you understand what sources you agree with on a personal level and are supported by facts, which you don't agree on a moral or philosophical level with but do have credible merit, and which sources are best avoided at all costs, regardless of your personal beliefs. 

5. Triangulate Your Sources

This is explained in more detail on the page Evaluation Techniques and Strategies: Triangulation, but the gist is to look at many different sources from different outlets. This is particularly useful for news as it gives you the chance to determine what facts are being reported across different various outlets--and if you're interested in breaking news, how those facts are updated (or aren't updated) across the different outlets over time. Note that this technique is being specifically earmarked for this method as it is widely used in journalism to obtain a firm grasp on the facts of a situation, but other methods (e.g., SIFT or SCARAB) may be used in tandem or as a complement to deepen your understanding of the source you are currently looking at. 

 

Specific Traditional Media Considerations

Journalistic Standards and Ethics

Traditional media outlets of all sorts typically have stricter regulations they must follow than New media. In part, this is because these outlets (regardless of how they are publishing their information) have been present long enough to have these regulations established and to have a long history of court cases that have further developed the contours of these regulations. 

Even with the higher degree of regulation there is still cause for concern when it comes to credibility depending on the source. Additionally, while journalists should be educated on journalism ethics, this does't mean that they, their publication/outlet, or larger media company will closely adhere to these principles--if they choose to adhere to them. Refusing to follow ethical standards may result in legal and professional consequences, but breaches of ethical conduct still do occur.

You can usually check to see if a media outlet has a transparent journalism ethics policy often through a simple google search (keeping in mind that the policy may be also entitled something akin to "Values and Principles" or "Code of Conduct"). However, it may be more difficult to track down some conglomerate's ethical standards than others.

Links & Resources

Traditional Media Regulations

Journalism Ethics & Real-Life Examples

Newspapers

For the most part, newspapers act under the Freedom of the Press with their regulations coming from court cases that have decided the contours of this freedom. Some key ideas:

  • Libel and Slander
    • i.e., presenting false information as fact
    • Public figures claiming libel must meet a higher standard than private figures, and typically needing to prove "actual malice"
    • Key case: New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964)
  • Prior Restraint
    • i.e., Government censorship before publication 
    • Some aspects of prior restraint are considered justified (e.g., when speech incites violence, is obscene, or exposes classified information such as military secrets)
    • For the most part, the government cannot censor/prohibit a publication before its publication
    • Key Case: Near v. Minnesota (1931)

Key Evaluation Considerations

  • Are you reading an editorial or a column? Note that opinion pieces written by columnists and editors are largely protected from libel laws
    • See the "Slander and Libel" section of E Osei-Hwere and P. Osei-Hwere's "Regulating the News Media" in Media Communication, Convergence and Literacy
  • For online/digital sources--does the source link out to citations where applicable?
  • Does your outlet have a transparent journalistic ethics policy 
  • Who is the parent company of the news outlet?
    • A parent company's bias may be reflected in the output of its news channels, although the extent of this may be minimal or mixed
    • Parent companies may also lead to media consolidation, in which multiple individual local outlets are given the same or nearly the same script, regardless of the channel's network

Helpful Links:

Broadcast & Cable News

While you may think that all news from a recognized station that is aired on television, over the radio, or online would be treated the same, this isn't true. Here are the key distinctions:

  • Broadcast/Network News:
    • All formats of news streamed over public airways, including local news channels
    • Overseen by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC, described below) and other legal frameworks that apply to the press
    • Individual channels and networks will be owned by a parent company
    • Examples:
      • ABC, PBS, CBS, NBC (NOT MSNBC), FOX (NOT Fox News)
  • Cable News:
    • News formats in which complete access is paywalled behind a subscription
      • may be a direct subscription to the site/channel
      • may be through a cable package
    • Individual stations will be owned by a parent company
    • NOT overseen by the FCC but still liable to other legal frameworks that apply to the press (e.g., libel)
    • Examples:
      • MSNBC, FOX News, CNN, Newsmax

About the Federal Communications Commission

The Federal Communications Commission, which licenses use of public airways to individual broadcast stations. Broadcast news encompasses all forms of news streamed over public airways--typically FM radio and televisions stations.  A few important notes:

  1. The FCC does not license radio or TV networks, but instead focuses on individual station licenses
  2. Content moderation is largely up to the stations/networks. However, the following are subject to FCC regulation:
    • Hoaxes
    • News Distortion

The FCC defines Hoaxes and News Distortion as follows:

  • Hoaxes: the spread of false information regarding a "crime or catastrophe" under the following conditions:
    • The station licensee knew that the information was false;
    • Broadcasting the false information directly causes substantial public harm; and
    • It was foreseeable that broadcasting the false information would cause such harm.
  • News Distortion: the intentional "rigging or slanting" of the news
    • requires compelling documentation and testimony that "a licensee or its management engaged in the intentional falsification of the news"
    • Will not intervene without such evidence

Key Evaluation Considerations:

  • Is the program you're watching a broadcast or network news station and potentially held to a higher degree of regulation?
  • Are you watching something on cable news that has less oversight?
  • Does your outlet have a transparent journalistic ethics policy?
  • Who is the parent company of the news outlet?
    • A parent company's bias may be reflected in the output of its news channels, although the extent of this may be minimal or mixed
    • Parent companies may also lead to media consolidation, in which multiple individual local outlets are given the same or nearly the same script, regardless of the channel's network

Helpful Links:

Specific New Media Considerations

Social Media Platforms

When considering to use a social media platform as a source of valid information, consider the following:

  •  Platforms are often owned by corporations
  • Corporations are not held to the same First Amendment constraints as traditional media outlets 
  • For any platform owned by a corporation, any content regulation (or lack thereof) on that platform is not subject to First Amendment constraints 
  • The trustworthiness of the platform as a general information source may depend on the platform's content regulations (e.g., vaccine misinformation policies) and the platform's rigor in applying those content regulations to information sources
  • Even for sites with active content regulation for misinformation, false or misrepresented information can still be published on the site--and may be widely seen before the information is taken down. Continue to use your own discretion to evaluate information

 

Social Media Accounts

When you're considering the credibility of information provided on social media accounts, there are a few main things to keep in mind:

  1. The person (or people) behind the account
    1. Is this a private citizen's account?
      1. Do they have the valid expertise and/or experience in this area to be an information source?
      2. If they have expertise, are they acting in their capacity as an expert or are they expressing their opinion as a private citizen?
      3. How long has their social media account been active and how many followers/friends do they have? These could be red flags that it is a fake account.
      4. What other type of content is represented? Largely inflammatory content could indicate it is a fake account, troll, or just someone highly biased.
    2. Is this a public figure's account?
      1. Do they have a Public Relations (PR) team (or a related employee/team) managing their social media account?
      2. Do they have the valid expertise and/or experience in this area to be an information source?
      3. Does the opinion posted on their account reflect their expertise, their personal opinions, or the perspective of what their PR team feels is appropriate for their public image?
    3. If this is a group's account:
      1. Is the group a credible organization with the expertise to provide information on this topic?
      2. Is the group a news organization known for their credibility?
      3. If the group does not fit into either of the above categories or if you've never come across it before, analyze it more thoroughly using a baseline strategy.
  2. The purpose of the account
    • Overall, what is the main reason why this account exists?
      • Is this account primarily satirical? Is it critical source for disseminating quick, high-quality information (e.g., a local emergency alert channel) ? Is it a source for news? Is it a non-critical source normally used to convey reliable information? Is it used to promote or advertise content? Is it a glimpse into a person's opinions?
  3. The Information shared on the account's posts
    • Of any external information shared:
      1. Is the information shared normally reliable or from a credible source?
      2. Is the information shared often from a dubious or disproven sources?

If you take these things into considerations and find that few signs point to the social media account being a reliable source of information, then you should consider treating this account as more of a source of entertainment and find a different outlet to act as a source of information. 

And for those of yu you may be interested in whether or not the account is fake, see the Better Business Bureau's "How to spot a fake social media account"

Podcasts

Approximately 40% of internet users of any age in North America listen to podcasts (Statista). Despite this, there is little oversight of misinformation and disinformation in the industry and recent esearch has shown that as much as one tenth of analyzed podcasts contain "potentially false information" (Brookings).

The following issues contribute to mis and disinformation in podcasts:

  • The conversational style of advertisement in podcasts may lead listeners to believe an advertisement more than a regular commercial on the radio
  • Some companies pay to join a podcast as a guest to discuss their products further obscuring the paid advertising (Bloomberg)
  • It is difficult to report misinformation on most podcasting platforms (Brookings)

When considering podcasts and the information contained in them, please consider the following:

  • Who are the hosts and do they represent a company or institution in their podcast?
    • Who are the podcasts guests and what company or institution do they represent?
  • What is the purpose of the podcast?
  • Who are the podcast's sponsors?
  • Is the podcast part of an organization or network?
  • Is there information about the podcast online? What are other's saying about the podcast? 
  • Listen critically. Even a trusted voice may spread disinformation unknowingly
  • Validate information from the podcast using source evaluation, triangulation, and lateral reading.