Bias in Writing, Annotated Bibliography Example

#1. Jamie has ignored the fact that credibility is not determined just by content but also the entity that hosts the content. All of the sites mentioned by Jamie are credible because they are owned and managed by entities which can be verified independently and enjoy good reputation. But the credibility of the website doesn’t automatically translate to the credibility of the content as some of these websites primarily support user-generated content. For example, user-generated content on Facebook may not be credible but the content posted by the company itself may be deemed as credible. Jamie argues that credibility is important when answers to questions matter but the fact is that we only seek answers when we deemed them to be important even though they may vary in degree of importance. Better criteria may be the potential consequences if the information turns out to be inaccurate or the importance of the audience for which the information is intended.

#2. Audrey doesn’t exactly answer the question as to which websites she regularly visits. If her answer is ‘peer review’, peer review is a process and applies to all kind of sources, not just websites. Since Audrey doesn’t answer the first part of the question, she also doesn’t answer whether the websites are deemed credible. Moreover, she also skips the question as to when credibility is more important and when it is less important. Her answer is more an argument that none of the sources are credible, including the peer reviewed ones. She does present the findings of a study to support her argument.

#3. The study assumes that a source cannot be deemed credible until it achieves a perfect or near-perfect reliability score. Even the most credible sources may have lapses from time to time because the peer review process is after all performed by those who like us may have their own biases but overall the group does a good job of ensuring the objectivity of the information. The study authors are also making an erroneous assumption that just because the rejection rate is same as what could be expected by chance, it demonstrates lower reliability of the peer review process. A better way might have been to actually study the articles that are accepted or rejected to determine whether the peer review process is effective or not. In addition, this is just one study that is making this claim, thus, the findings should be viewed with skepticism until more studies reach the same conclusions.

#4. Taschika’s answer is confusing because wording is not very helpful in determining the source’s bias. One can be a proficient writer and yet their articles are often biased. Bias has little or nothing to do with one’s writing skills as Taschika suggests. Professional journalists are skilled writers yet their articles are often full of biases. A better way to determine potential bias is having information about the source’s background and history and also taking a closer look at the content to determine if it may be trying to advocate a particular position on the issue. Similarly, the sources cited by the author to support his/her arguments may also give important clues regarding the bias of the author.

#5. Darlitha’s response is pretty good. The bias does lead to one-sided story and the author sometimes does personally benefit from biased story if his/her audience believes his/her story. Darlitha is also right that part of the research should be determining the potential of bias so that the information could be utilized carefully. Tabitha also points out that sometimes the bias can be determined through sufficient testing of the data or comparing it with other studies and any conclusion that lies at extreme ends could be a sign that the data is biased. Tabitha’s response reveals the importance of learning about the author’s background and motives in determining the potential of bias.