Guide: How to Review News Articles on Credder

Credder
Credder
Jun 4 · 5 min read

The purpose of a review is to provide actionable insights regarding the article’s credibility that can be referenced by the author, outlet, and other news consumers.


How to Review

Step 1 — Overall Trust

Step 2 — Broad Reason

Step 3— Specific Reason

Step 4— Written Explanation

Snapshot of Credder’s review process.

Examples of Helpful Reviews

Helpful reviews include a written explanation pointing out specific examples of when the reviewer’s trust was gained or lost, and why.

Credible
“This article presents the results of two very robust studies in a way that makes the findings more easy for the average reader to digest. By taking a complicated topic and explaining the high-level findings and adding some stories from individual women, the author brings the complex issues associated with gender discrimination to a wider audience. The article is well-balanced and doesn’t take a “blaming” tone while making it clear that there are still important issues of sexism at play in our society, especially at the top of the corporate ladder.”

Illogical — Speculation
“Right out of the gate, the author of the article, which is just anonymously Reuters Staff, speculates about the actions Trump will take and how it “would bring Trump within yards of North Korean soldiers, who stand eyeball to eyeball with their South Korean enemies, and likely be regarded by the North as highly provocative.” This is all a very unpredictable situation and the Reuters Staff sound like they’re playing on U.S. fear of North Korea.”

Bias — Pure Opinion
“The sources quoted, language used, and general tilt of this entire article are completely one-sided. The author does not make a single mention of the patients who do actually benefit from the organization, nor does he make any effort to offer any potential alternative explanations for the facts he outlines in the article. This is an opinion piece, not a news article.”

Examples of Unhelpful Reviews

Credible
“Written by an expert”

Mistake — Science Misrepresented
“This whole thing about climate change is blown out of proportion. Humans don’t even produce as much methane as cows so how does this article not explain more about that. Seems like a bogus report to me.”

Bias — Political Bias
“This is FAKEEE NEWS!!! Your wasting your time reading this load of crap. they just mad they r not in control”


Review Options and When to Use Them

Listed below are all the review options available on Credder.

Only one review option can be selected when reviewing an article. Each review option is a reflection of the overall quality of an article (e.g. Was the article credible, illogical, biased, mistaken, or not credible?)

*Note: The term “author” below describes who wrote the article and can be used interchangeably with journalist, reporter, editor, etc.

Credible

Investigative — Author(s) of the article conduct original reporting to discover and examine the facts of (an incident, allegation, etc.) so as to present new information to the public.

Great Context — Author(s) of the article provides the setting for an event, statement, or idea, and in a way that provides a complete overview or fuller context.

Well Sourced — Author(s) of the article obtains and presents a diverse set of information. Includes quotes, data, etc.

Balanced — Author(s) of the article provides a fair and balanced representation of all viewpoints.

Illogical

Speculation — Author(s) of the article provide conjecture without firm evidence.

Anecdotal Evidence — Author(s) of the article provides evidence in the form of stories that people tell about what has happened to them.

Generalization — Author(s) of the article make a general or broad statement that isn’t case-specific or nuanced.

Stacking the Deck — Author(s) of the article reject, omit, or ignore evidence that supports an opposing argument.

Appeal to Authority — Author(s) of the article insists that a claim is true simply because a valid authority or expert on the issue said it was true, without any other supporting evidence offered.

Straw Man — Author(s) of the article intentionally misrepresent a proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent’s real argument.

Slippery Slope — Author(s) of the article provides an idea or course of action which will lead to additional, more significant events, where the connection of each event is not only unwarranted but with each step, it becomes less and less likely to be true.

Appeal to Emotion — Author(s) of the article uses emotion in place of reason in order to support the conclusion.

More reasons coming soon…

Biased

Pure Opinion — Author(s) of the article presents a view or judgment without supporting evidence.

Hit Piece — Author(s) of the article attempt to sway public opinion by presenting false or biased information in a way that appears objective and truthful.

Political Bias — Author(s) of the article slant or skew facts in order to support a political position or figure.

Racial Bias — Author(s) of the article present prejudice in favor of or against a person or group based on their ethnicity, culture, history, language, etc.

National Bias — Author(s) of the article present prejudice in favor of or against a large body of people united by common descent, culture, history, language, etc. inhabiting a particular country or territory.

Religious Bias — Author(s) of the article present prejudice in favor of or against a person or group based on their belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.

Gender Bias — Author(s) of the article present prejudice in favor of or against a person or group based on their sex (male, female, etc.)

Financial Incentive — Author(s) of the article has or will receive financial benefits for reporting positively or negatively on a particular subject.

Mistake

Misused Image/Video — Author(s) of the article provides an image or video used in the wrong way or for the wrong purpose (e.g. soundbites).

Misused Term — Author(s) of the article provides a term used in the wrong way or for the wrong purpose.

Factual Error — Author(s) of the article makes a mistake when presenting a piece of information used as evidence.

Study Misinterpreted — Author(s) of the article gives a false or misleading account of a particular investigation, analysis, study or data set.

Science Misinterpreted — Author(s) of the article gives a false or misleading account of a particular area of science.

Not Credible

Satire — Author(s) of the article provides humor, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule for the primary purpose of entertainment, not educating its readers.

Surface Level — Author(s) of the article provides minimal, generic, or insignificant information pertaining to a particular subject.

Sensational — Author(s) of the article presents information in a way that is intended to provoke public interest and excitement, at the expense of accuracy.

Lack of Reliable Sources — Author(s) of the article fail to provide adequate evidence or sources to support claims made within the article.

Credder

Written by

Credder

Accelerating the news industry’s shift from clicks to #credibility. A review site for news. In Beta — Open to the public. Credder.com

Welcome to a place where words matter. On Medium, smart voices and original ideas take center stage - with no ads in sight. Watch
Follow all the topics you care about, and we’ll deliver the best stories for you to your homepage and inbox. Explore
Get unlimited access to the best stories on Medium — and support writers while you’re at it. Just $5/month. Upgrade