Prerequisite to Activism: Understanding the Issues and Sources

I did not grow up in a household that was politically active beyond casting a vote in most elections. I want to be more active than that, and I want my children to more active. If there are issues that are important to us, I want us to feel confident and comfortable contacting our elected representatives, talking with others about the issues, organizing locally to address concerns, and taking whatever other action might be appropriate to work within the democratic process to effect positive change. It isn’t enough just to feel passionate about an issue; there needs to be action behind those feelings in order for there to be change.

Before becoming passionate about the issues, though, I want to understand the issues more fully than just seeing a single news article or video that elicits an emotional reaction. I want to understand the issues before I fight for them. A lot of headlines and articles try to get readers to act without understanding the issues in-depth, and I resent that. We’re smart enough to understand more than a headline, and I don’t want to be manipulated into fighting for bad policies after only having been presented with just some of the information.

The prerequisites necessary before taking on an issue are:

• Evaluate the source(s) from which I’m gaining information.
• Understand the issue. After evaluating the initial source and content, conduct additional research to gain a wider range of understanding.

These issues are basic research skills, by the way. I hope every student of a certain age (at least by college, hopefully in high school or earlier) is taught how to work through these issues in order to better understand issues and information sources.

An Example Issue

I recently watched a video, EXPOSED: USDA’s Secret War on Wildlife, which brings up issues that could make someone want to become active to effect change.

A few of the issues noted in the video are:

• Wildlife Services is supposed to be enforcing use of deadly poisons, including DDT, sodium cyanide, compound 1080, and strychnine. Instead, they’re handing these chemicals out to groups and individuals to use.
• There is a level of accepted brutality within the program. Agents are not required to check traps within certain time frames. Traps can go weeks without being checked, so animals caught in the traps languish and can die very horrible deaths.
• Pets were often killed as a side effect of the program’s poor policies and control. Agents were told that if the dead pet had a collar, bury it and don’t tell. Family pets vanished as a result, and their families were left not knowing what had happened or if their pets were still alive.
• Dogs were tortured using M44 cyanide capsules.

My daughter is currently too young to understand this particular video (she’s only a few weeks old), but this is the kind of thing I want to show her in a few years, when she can begin to understand the issues and think through them. I don’t want her to blindly trust the things that are said in any video. That can lead to problems, and it does with certain “news” outlets like Fox News and advertisements. Information in various media forms (video, print, etc.) often has a certain perspective, and it’s important to understand why the information is presented in the way it is.

So, to start the conversation about this and other videos, a few questions to bring up with your children are (adapted from Harvard Guide to Using Sources: A Publication of the Harvard College Writing Program):

• Who is the author? This doesn’t mean the author’s name. Who is this person or organization, and why do they have authority to discuss the matter at hand? What are their qualifications? Are they affiliated with a group or organization that has a vested interest in a particular outcome? For example, an individual writing about how Chemical X is great for curing cancer may have a vested interest in Chemical X if he is one of the owners of the company that manufacturers that chemical.
• What is the purpose of the source? Why is the author initiating the conversation on this topic and in this manner? Is there an motive, positive or negative? This may be related to who the author is.
• What is the scope? What is covered or even not covered? Sometimes what is not discussed can be as important to understanding the intent behind the source as what is discussed. If an individual writes an article about the benefits of Tax Bill A and only mentions the potential positive outcomes, it may be worth looking into what the potential negative outcomes are. Just focusing on the positive and ignoring the negative can be good for influencing readers but maybe not for understanding the issue in-depth.
• Who published the source? Was it published on a respected site or by an authoritative organization? An article on a university’s website is more likely to be balanced when discussing an issue like the pros and cons of Chemical X than an article published on the website of the company that manufactures that chemical.
• When was the source published? Depending on the topic, information even from a few years ago may not be as informative as newer information. This applies to the sciences and current events news much more than to topics like literary analysis.

In considering these questions for this video:

• Who is the author? An organization called Predator Defense made the video. Their stated mission is, “to protect native predators and create alternatives for people to coexist with wildlife” (“About Us,” 2013).
• What is the purpose of the source? The video is clearly intended to sway the audience. It is not presented as a fair and balanced analysis of the organization Wildlife Services; it is intended as an attack on that agency. This doesn’t mean that the information in the video is incorrect, but it does mean that I would want to look for information countering the information presented here before becoming passionate about the cause. I would want to understand the pros and cons from several sources and from several sources with different perspectives on the issues and the agency. Becoming passionate about an issue based only on the information presented by a single biased source can be dangerous.
• What is the scope? The video discusses issues mostly from the past few years and pertaining to certain geographic areas. It might be useful to access information from other organizations in those areas in order to better understand the issues.
• Who published the source? The organization that created the video also published it. It hasn’t been vetted by any other, more authoritative organization at this point. If it had been published on a university website, for example, that would carry a greater air of authority, but since the organization is publishing it on their own site, it’s good to stay a bit skeptical in considering the issues until additional research is done.
• When was the source published? The organization published the video on their website and on YouTube. They have a clear reason for having created it (to advocate change within the agency) and want their message to reach as many people as possible.

Once you’ve seen the video and discussed some of these issues with your children, if you’re still passionate about the issues that were brought up, then it’s time to become active in trying to work towards effecting the change you want.

Sources and Further Reading:

• Booth, Wayne, et al. The Craft of Research

• Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2008.
• Predator Defense. “About Us.” Predator Defense. 2013. http://www.predatordefense.org/about.htm Accessed 6 April 2014.
• President and Fellows of Harvard College. “Evaluating Sources: Questions to Ask about All Sources.” Harvard Guide to Using Sources: A Publication of the Harvard College Writing Program. 2014. http://isites.harvard.edu/icb/icb.do?keyword=k70847&pageid=icb.page346373 Accessed 6 April 2014.