Is the Website Credible?
Is the Website Credible?
Gun control has been a hot topic ever since Columbine in 1998 and has only increased ever since the 2018 Parkland shooting. This is why it’s important to really analyze your sources when it comes to the gun control debate and make sure that you aren’t reading “fake news”. A perfect example of the importance of analyzing your sources is gunfacts.info. They say on their website that they are “neither pro-gun nor anti-gun. They are pro-facts and anti-bs” and want to “debunk gun control as misinformation” (Gunfacts). They also say on their mission statement that they want to “return honesty to the gun control debate” and that their research comes from “peer reviewed studies and government databases” (Gunfacts). The website also shows graphs about gun control statistics.
The Gun Facts logo:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_banners/2861396988/1414014696/1500x500)
Upon first look it could actually appear to have some credible information, albeit presented in a very eccentric format. The image above is what a reader sees when they first click onto the website, followed by tabs that direct them to each webpage and section of the site. About the publisher, infographics, blog posts, books, Alerts and Volunteers, and Donate are all the tabs at the top of the screen.
But upon further examination it becomes clear that the website is not credible. The website has biased statements throughout, articles lack specific authors, and information presented from sources that have been described by fact checking websites as biased. For legal purposes I want to make it clear that this is just my opinion about the website and I encourage everyone to make their own conclusions should they decide to visit it.
The first reason I found Gunfacts.info to not be credible was the biased statements that frame the information to back an agenda. The website’s main focus is to “debunk common myths about gun control” (Gunfacts). This statement suggests bias within the cite, as they are trying to prove a specific argument by attacking the opposing argument credibility, as is the case anytime a website or article’s main focus is to debunk or disprove a side instead of presenting the evidence in a fair, unbiased manner.
The website includes other statements throughout that also show a clear anti-gun control bias. These statements include “…when a neighbor, pundit or politician repeats some sound bite about gun control policy, you can quickly find that myth then rebuke with accurate information”, “Are red flag laws effective, or should politicians be flagged for being offsides” , and “…a headline from a propaganda organization within the gun control movement” (Gunfacts). These statements all show that the website is clearly focused more on pushing a specific agenda and not on presenting the information for the user to make their own conclusions about. The quotes frame all the information in an anti-gun control image as that is the position the website hopes readers will form after reading.
Editor of Gunfacts
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/08/GSmith073.jpg/1200px-GSmith073.jpg)
The second reason I found Gunfacts.info to not be credible to is the articles in the blog lack specific authors. When I went to the blog section of the website, all of their articles were published by “admin”. They didn’t list specific people who you could fact check the credibility of. The website lists Guy Smith as the website’s editor and describes him as “a writer, songwriter, and political provocateur” (Gunfacts.info). The phrase “political provocateur” stands out to me because provocateurs tend to only present one side of the argument and make outlandish statements to incite a reaction from the opposition. Perhaps this was just a misuse of words, but the fact that the website’s editor uses that particular word to describe him has to be taken into consideration when evaluating a website’s credibility. While it does say that Smith is “not a member of any political organization” it doesn’t say the same about all members who work at Gunfacts.info, specifically members of “admin” who write all of the posts in the website’s blog section.
(http://www.gunfacts.info/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Mass-Public-Shottings-by-the-numbers-1.jpg)
Finally, the third reason I found the website not to be credible is the information doesn’t have a clear source for the information presented on some of their charts. While some charts, like the chart of “Interstate Sources of Crime Guns” (Gunfacts.info) have a citation of sources that check out as credible, other charts have citations from organizations whose credibility has come into question. For example Gunfacts’ “Mass Public Shooting by the numbers” chart is cited as being from the Crime Prevention Research Center, which has been described by mediabiasfactcheck.com as having a “Right Bias” whose founder John Lott “has been called a junk scientist and been accused of accepting funding from the NRA” (Media Bias Fact Check). The fact that gubfacts.info uses this center that is labeled as biased suggests that it is likely that the website harbors the same biases.
(https://i2.wp.com/mediabiasfactcheck.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/right03.png?ssl=1)
Overall I want to stress the importance of fact-checking any information that you find online, especially when it comes to the gun control debate where emotions tend to run high on both sides. When I found Gunfacts.info I approached it with an open mind an a hope to learn new information. But the more I looked into it, the less credible I found it. Statements of bias, lack of authors on blog posts, and the willingness to use information from biased sources. Once again I want to remind readers that this is just my analysis of the website and I encourage anyone who is interested to go to the website and form your own conclusions.
Works Cited:
https://www.gunfacts.info/infographics/
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/crime-prevention-research-center/
