Evaluation of General Sources

In this post I'll examine two sources to be used in the first major assignment. The first source is a New York Times interview with James Franco and Seth Rogen. The second source is a timeline of the Sony hack in 2014.

What is the URL? And does it reflect the source's credibility?

Both articles are .com URL's. Generally, this implies a credible website, though not always. Unlike .edu or .gov, a .com website is not sponsored by a governing body. Instead, any individual organization or person can purchase a .com domain and express their opinions there. In the case of these two articles, the news sources which own the domain are the main source of credibility. The New York Times has a solid reputation, and Deadline Hollywood, although more gossip-y, steers away from tabloid news to present accurate information.

Thomas, Peter. "Hollywood, Hollywood Sign, Los Angeles, California, Usa" 5/25/13 via pixabay
Public Domain Dedication License

Who is the author? And what's their expertise?

The New York Times article is written by Dave Itzkoff, although it contains direct quotes from Franco and Rogen. Itzkoff, a Princeton English Lit. grad, has an extensive history working with news magazines which dates back to 1999. He has also published two memoirs.

Franco and Rogen, as successful actors and directors with extensive resumes, lend credibility to the topic of their film, The Interview, since both acted in it. Rogen also co-directed it.

The second source is authored by David Robb, a three-time Pulitzer Prize nominee. He has written three books, two of them concerning Hollywood. His work has also appeared in trusted sources like the New York Times and Washington Post.

Is the page up-to-date?

The New York Times article was last updated Dec. 21, 2014. This is towards the end of the Sony hack drama. Since its publication, not much has changed in terms of public knowledge about the hack.

The Deadline Hollywood article was last updated Dec. 24, 2014. Like the first article, it includes the bulk of disclosed information concerning the Sony Hack.

What is the article's purpose?

The main purpose of both articles is to inform. The New York Times article does this through a direct interview with poeple involved in the Sony hack drama. However, its tone is definitely supportive of The Interview, and the article serves the secondary purpose of nudging the readers to watch the film.

The second article is more scientific, providing an exact timeline of the events of the Sony hack as they happened. Like most articles, its tone sympathizes with Sony, portraying them in a positive light.
At the end, there is information on how to rent or purchase The Interview online.

Are there graphics?

The first source provides a series of humorous Rogen-Franco shots from various movies they've acted in together. The photos help the audience to like the interviewees and also inspire us to go see The Interview!

The second source has photos of various people involved in the Sony hack: company higher-ups, actors, security guards at a theater. Rather than entertain, the photos attempt to further convey information to the audience.

Is the source biased?

Neither source demonstrates an extreme bias, although both support Sony and The Interview, which benefit from the positive publicity of these articles. Based on other relevant sources, the information portrayed in these articles is accurate.

Does the source provide links?

Both articles contain embedded links, although the New York Times article does a better job at it. Despite being a quicker read, it contains more links than the second article.