Thursday, February 7, 2013

Website analysis worksheet



Here is the website I found for gun control.

Is there an author? Is the page signed?
-Yes, the author is Brad Bannon.
And there is a link to his profile.

Is the author qualified and/or reputable? An expert?
- His profile says,  "Brad Bannon, a Democratic consultant, is president of Bannon 
Communications Research, a Washington, D.C. based political polling and consulting firm".

Who is the sponsor?
-He is a guest writer for Politix.

Is the sponsor of the page reputable?
How reputable?
-This particular page was written by a guest writer. So, it would be more sensible to do more research on that writer. However, since the website allows anyone to write without using sources, I would say the site isn't very reliable. 


If the page includes neither a signature nor a sponsor, is there any other way to determine its origin?
-There is a signature and a sponsor.


Are there links that take you outside of the site?
-None that I could find.


Is the information reliable and error-free?
-The writing itself was fine, but there were some statistics which failed to be cited. 
That causes me to be a little worried about the reliability of the page.


Is there an editor or someone who verifies/checks the information?
-None that I could find.


Where doubt exists, can the information be cross-checked with a reliable source?
-No outside sources were given. 


Does the information show a minimum of bias?
-No, it shows a lot of bias. 


Is the page designed to sway opinion?
-Most definitely. 


Is there any advertising on the page?
-I didn't see any.


Is the page dated?
- It was added Jan. 9th.
All links work.


Is there an indication that the page has been completed, and is not still under construction?
-It looked completed to me.


What topics are covered? How in-depth is the material?
- The material is meant to sway the audience toward favoring gun control. The information is very biased, and no sources are given. Not very in-depth at all. I don't believe this to be a reliable source, and would not use it. 

2 comments:

  1. Don't forget to do the technical analysis of the website. it looks good so far though. Good attention to determining bias!

    ReplyDelete
  2. You could us it to describe the differing perspective on an issue and to point out the flaws in the argument and discrepancies in factual claims.

    ReplyDelete