Once upon a time, not so long ago, there were clear markers that helped readers and viewers to judge reliability. In those days, the context provided the audience with an easy way to evaluate the quality of information. If it was on the news pages of a newspaper or newscast it could be assumed to be supported by facts. If it was an advertisement, the audience expected it to be tailored to the interests of the sponsor. If it was a theatrical presentation it was entertainment. In these situations the question of what was true was reasonably obvious. Even with news sources, however, savvy consumers retained some awareness that content choices inevitably reflected the creator’s point of view.
I acknowledge that all content is biased, but in the 20th Century, news was governed by journalistic standards that assured consumers that a story was reasonably accurate. Careful watching of newscasts or comparisons of newspapers showed that there could still be substantial differences in what was included and that subtly changed the meaning. Data was selected to reinforce the central contention but the facts still needed to be supported by credible sources. Back then there wasn’t the kind of content free-for-all that overwhelms us today.
Journalists still insist that “ ‘[J]ournalistic truth’ is a process that begins with the professional discipline of assembling and verifying facts. Then journalists try to convey a fair and reliable account of their meaning, valid for now, subject to further investigation.” But what about all the content that is not coming from professionally-trained news people?
Content Today
The availability of new avenues for disseminating content has removed barriers and broadened the range of voices that can be heard. Unfortunately, the elimination of gatekeepers who established the context for content diminished the ability of the audience to evaluate its quality. Without editors to assure content quality, with so many competing sources of information, and the bottomless requirements of the internet, consumers can easily become overwhelmed by all the choices. Without ways to evaluate the message quality, there is no way to know what to believe.
How to Evaluate Content Quality
Entertainment
The value that content has for you depends upon your reason for consuming it. To evaluate entertainment, you apply your criteria of enjoyment—is it up-beat, funny, heart-felt, stimulating, thought-provoking, or creative? We all have external standards that we apply when we watch a movie or read a book and we will be more satisfied if we know what those criteria are. That way we can read a critical description and select entertainment to determine whether it has a solid probability of being enjoyable.
Advertising
Advertisements used to be easy to spot—they were in specific sections on the pages of print media, were in breaks in television shows, or were on billboards. Now companies can insert ads into social media and include product placements in movies and endorsements that seem like news. That can make it more difficult to know when it’s an ad.
Information
Evaluating informative materials is the most difficult challenge today. Sources of information require more stringent criteria and most consumers do not have those skills. Faced with the cacophony of conflicting content, it is difficult to assess research studies, news, and corporate reports in order to make good decisions. These days news is part of the entertainment division and research and business information is presented in an engaging way with little supporting documentation. Easy to consume, the veracity of the content is difficult to judge. In today’s world, ease of consumption and style have superseded breadth and complexity.
Criteria for Evaluating Message Quality
By applying some specific tests, consumers can improve the likelihood that the information they receive is credible. When assessing the quality of content ask yourself these questions.
Tips for Evaluating Content
- Does the content have authority?
- Who published this content? Are they free of selfish motives and considered to be objective? Are they a governmental, philanthropic, or educational institution? What is the purpose of the publication?
- What is the source of the information? How was it obtained? Is it supported with reliable references?
- Who is the author? Does the author have valid credentials and a solid reputation? Has the author demonstrated knowledge about this content?
- Is there a big contradiction between this information and other reliable sources?
2. Is the information current?
- Is it clear that this content is up-to-date or has it been superseded by more recent or more relevant information?
3. What is the purpose of the content?
- What is the author’s intention? Is this fact, opinion, or propaganda? Is the author objective and impartial on this issue? Are the words being used emotion-laden or can they be defined concretely?
4. How is the content organized and is it comprehensive?
- Is the content presented logically with clearly explained points that support the thesis? Is there needless reputation? Is it easy to read with clear language?
In the past, this process was less difficult because the form of corporate reports, news stories, research results, and investment information was supported by reliable, verifiable data. Now, the ease of consumption trumps depth. This accommodates lazy consumers who are uninformed about the consequences of their ignorance. Intelligent voters, buyers, and patients need the best information available in order to make the best choices. They need to take the trouble to evaluate content quality.
The post The Content Conundrum: How to Evaluate Content Quality appeared first on .