# data[].attributes.body
You have been allocated a side in the debate.

Read the source given.

What is the main message? Is it for or against AI/ Social Media/ Journalism?

Would you use the source to support your opinion? Use OPCVL to decide.

Post your response on PADLET

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Source Analysis Booklet - Critical Media Analysis Grade 8 Q1 2025

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
 SA Formative--> Value of Journalism- G8 Q1 2025 Mrs Purchase

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
 Formative Source Analysis task and rubric- Mrs Purchase 2025

# data[].attributes.body
Journalists are still valuable presently. The article above, from the New York Times, which makes it credible and reliable, and is from 2024, which makes it relevant and current. This means that this source is quite authoritative and useful. Firstly, the value of the source, which is that it helps to understand how AI is being used in politics. This shows how powerful AI is in politics and in creating videos. It shows how AI can be used for good purposes and eliminate many of the difficulties that arise for politicians during campaigns, which is reaching people in rural areas. Using AI and sending videos to these people who otherwise would not have gotten the message. Another value of the source is that it also shows what flaws there are in using this method of campaigning. It talks about how quickly AI is growing, and how easy to access it is, which could lead to problems in the future. It says that people could misuse it to send fake videos or messages out to people, causing confusion and hence skew elections unfairly. Some limitations of the source are that it is not very detailed, and does not completely show both sides of the issue, hence is slightly biased. The article does not go into much depth as to how AI can be misused, as it does not give any examples. The article also does not talk a lot of the other benefits that AI could have in elections, such as, formatting messages to be able to directly appeal to certain blocks of voters. The source talks more about how AI can be misused to send synthetic, inaccurate videos of political figures which could sway voters’ opinion without the leaders actually having done anything. It also says how the quality of the videos is quite bad, being very pixelated, and having minor hallucinations, such as changing the types of glasses on the figure in the video. However, despite there being a lot of bias, even after some research on other benefits of AI in election campaigns, the article is still justifiably telling the reader that journalists are still valuable in the present day.

# data[].attributes.body
Orgin

Title: World News Day: In times of crisis and change, journalists play a critical role in society

Author: Warren Fernadez

News paper: The Straits Times

Public dates: Sep 2022

Purpose

Written for World News Day to emphasize the importance of professional journalism in sustaining democratic societies.

Fernandez’s purpose is to inform and persuade the public about the critical role journalists play in delivering credible, fact-based information that supports informed democratic debate.

Advocates for journalism that not only reports news but also explains, analyzes, and inspires.

Content & Context

Published by Warren Fernandez in The Straits Times in September 2022 for World News Day.

Highlights the role of journalism in maintaining democracy and public trust.

Stresses that credible, fact-checked, and timely reporting is essential for rational debate and collective decision-making.

Notes that facts must remain shared despite differing opinions, as democracy cannot function without them.

Observes that audiences increasingly value context, explanations, and commentary from trusted voices.

Written during a period of global uncertainty marked by the COVID-19 pandemic, disinformation, political polarization, and ongoing crises, underscoring journalism’s responsibility to provide clarity and reliability.

Value

Provides firsthand insight from a senior journalist and editor, offering an authoritative perspective on newsroom standards and responsibilities.

Reinforces the importance of fact-based reporting, editorial oversight, and analysis in supporting democracy and public trust.

Useful for understanding how the journalism industry perceives its role in combatting misinformation and guiding society during crises.

Reflects both the ideals and self-perception of the media in the 21st century.

Limitation

Presents an insider, institutional view of journalism, emphasizing its positive role while not fully addressing weaknesses such as bias, government/corporate influence, or declining trust.

The celebratory tone (due to World News Day) may reduce objectivity.

Written in the Singapore context, where stricter media regulations exist, so its discussion of safeguarding democracy may not fully apply to societies with freer or more adversarial press systems

# data[].attributes.body
AI:

Based on the information available, here is an OPCVL analysis of the article "Health misinformation is rampant on social media. Here's what it does, why it spreads and what people can do about it."

Origin:

Primary/secondary source: This is a secondary source, as it is an article written by an academic expert analyzing a public issue, not a direct report of an event.

Where was it created? The original article was published on The Conversation website. The search results point to a similar article on the Boston University website, which is a credible academic institution.

When was it created? The article was published on February 9, 2024.

Who wrote it? The author is an academic with relevant expertise in public health or a related field, as is typical of articles on The Conversation and university websites. The search result for the similar article on BU Today lists an author named Ari Trachtenberg.

Possible qualifications of the author? The author would likely be an associate professor of public health or a related field, given the nature of the publication and the content.

Purpose:

Why was it written? The article was written to inform the public about the dangers of health misinformation on social media and to provide practical advice on how to identify and combat its spread. It aims to raise awareness and provide solutions to a serious public health problem.

Who is the intended audience? The intended audience is the general public, including individuals, educators, health professionals, and journalists, as the article offers specific advice for each of these groups.

What is the context of the source? The article's context is the widespread and growing issue of misinformation, especially health-related falsehoods, on social media platforms, which has been particularly prominent during and after the COVID-19 pandemic.

Content:

What is the main idea? The main idea is that health misinformation on social media is a dangerous and growing problem that affects public health and individual decisions.

What are the arguments/perspectives or conclusions present? The article argues that the spread of misinformation is fueled by declining trust in science and political polarization. It concludes that individuals can combat misinformation by verifying sources, checking author credentials, and cross-referencing information with multiple reliable sources. It also suggests that people should be wary of sensational claims and prioritize scientific evidence over personal anecdotes.

Values:

In what ways is the source credible and useful to my research? The source is valuable because it is published by a credible academic source (The Conversation or Boston University). It provides a well-structured and evidenced-based analysis of a contemporary issue. It is current (published in 2024), making it highly relevant to a modern study of media and public health. The article also provides actionable advice, which is useful for understanding solutions to the problem.

Limitations:

In what ways is the source not credible or useful to my research? The primary limitation is that the article, though recent, may become dated as social media platforms, algorithms, and the methods of spreading misinformation evolve. Additionally, since it is an opinion piece from an expert, it may have a specific perspective that may not fully represent all viewpoints on the issue. While it provides a good overview, it does not represent original, primary research data.

# data[].attributes.body
This source is written by Jo Adentji dated November 2023. The source is mainly structured by the author’s opinion about the media telling when they have used AI. As it is a primary source and it is from one’s perspective, it might be biased, but it can tell the reader that Journalists are still valuable.

To begin with, the article explains about how AI can also be biased just like human editors, and why journalists are still valuable. “AI systems are trained using data, and that data can reflect the biases of the people who created it. As a result, AI-generated content can sometimes be biased.”. This sentence shows that AI could possibly provide biased datas, and it is sometimes inaccurate. The source also states that concealing whether the media used AI or not could provide inaccurate information to the consumers, which could be fatal for journalism. The source adresses the importance of disclosing whether the media has used AI or not.

The article was influenced by the update of ChatGPT in 2023, which made the AI to be able to look, hear and also speak, and so that the system became more like a human being. The content of the sorce is mainly focused on what should the media do to ensure transparency and accountability, and the shourtages of using AI as a source for journalism. The article also says the names of media like “BBC” which makes the article more credible and reliable. “The Conversation 2023” makes it justifiable as it is a social media which is used globaly.

Despite these factors in the article that supports the value of journalists, there are some limitations for the source. As the source is mainly from one person’s perspective, this means that there are less opinions from other point of view which makes the source less authoritative.

Nevertheless, the article still is valuable for its information about AI, and the opinion from the author’s perspective. The souce is published recently, which will make the article more relevant to modern days, and will be good for understanding about the how media should use AI for their jobs.

To conclude, the source supports the value of human journalists, and is valuable for understanding the roles of journalists. The article explains about how the media is using AI technology nowadays, and how it should be used, and this leads the reader to a adequate understanding of whether journalists are still valuable for media.

# data[].attributes.body
Origin

Source G is an article written by Warren Fernandez, then editor-in-chief of The Straits Times, published in September 2022 to mark World News Day. The Straits Times is Singapore’s leading national newspaper and one of the most established English-language papers in Southeast Asia. As a professional journalist and editor, Fernandez represents a mainstream media perspective that emphasizes the importance of trusted, fact-based reporting in sustaining democratic societies, especially during times of crisis and rapid change.

Purpose

The purpose of this article is to stress the essential role of professional journalism in safeguarding democracy and communities, especially in times of crisis. Warren Fernandez seeks to argue that credible, fact-based, and well-explained reporting is necessary to enable reasoned public debate, counter misinformation, and maintain trust in the media. It also aims to remind audiences of the value of professional newsrooms and encourage continued support for quality journalism.

Content/ Context

The source you're referring to — Source G — is:

"World News Day: In times of crisis and change, journalists play a critical role in society"
by Warren Fernandez, published in The Straits Times, September 2022.

Full Source Citation (Formatted Example – APA Style):

Fernandez, W. (2022, September). World News Day: In times of crisis and change, journalists play a critical role in society. The Straits Times.

This article discusses the critical role of journalists in upholding democracy, especially during crises. Fernandez emphasizes the need for fact-based, reliable, and timely information, along with insight and inspiration, to foster reasoned public discourse. The piece highlights the labor-intensive nature of professional journalism and the growing importance of trusted news sources in an era of misinformation and confusion.

Let me know if you need this citation in a different format (MLA, Chicago, etc.) or if you’d like help analyzing or using this source in an essay.

Value

Value of Source G for Evaluating the Value of Journalism:

Authoritative Perspective: Written by Warren Fernandez, Editor-in-Chief of The Straits Times, a major newspaper, the source offers an insider’s knowledgeable and experienced perspective on journalism’s role. This adds credibility when assessing how professional journalism contributes to society.

Emphasis on Fact-based Reporting: The source clearly outlines why fact-based, reliable journalism is essential for healthy democratic debate and social trust. This helps highlight journalism’s value in combating misinformation and enabling informed decision-making.

Focus on Journalistic Standards: It explains the processes involved—fact-checking, editorial oversight, and analysis—showing the rigorous work behind quality journalism. This is useful in evaluating the professionalism and responsibility that underpins trustworthy journalism.

Contextual Relevance: Written during World News Day 2022, in a time when misinformation is widespread, it captures contemporary concerns about journalism’s importance, making it relevant to current evaluations of journalism’s societal value.

Limitations of Source G for Evaluating the Value of Journalism:

Opinion Bias: As an opinion piece by a leading journalist defending the profession, the source may be biased in favor of traditional media and might downplay criticisms of mainstream journalism such as perceived biases or failures.

Lack of Empirical Evidence: The article relies mainly on assertions and broad observations without providing specific examples, data, or independent studies to support claims. This limits its use if you need quantitative evidence of journalism’s impact.

Narrow Perspective: The source primarily reflects the viewpoint of professional journalists and mainstream media. It doesn’t engage with alternative perspectives, such as the role of citizen journalism, the rise of social media, or critiques of media ownership and influence.

Generalizations: It makes broad claims about journalism’s value and public trust without addressing complex nuances, such as how different communities might distrust media or how misinformation spreads despite journalism efforts.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
  Formative Source Analysis task and rubric- Mrs Purchase 2025

# data[].attributes.body
This source is valuable for understanding whether journalists are still required in today’s society because it provides an article from a credible and believable source , The Guardian, written in 2023 which is a recent and relevant date. The editorial states that, even though the usage and distribution of newspapers in Britain is decreasing, journalists and newspapers continue to produce valuable work . The article points out that accurate facts and facts that are detailed and help readers actually understand the situation can only come from human journalists.

The value of this source lies in its ability to show quality reporting and not one that is vague by providing a clear example-Between 2009 and 2019, over 320 local newspapers closed due to a significant drop in advertising revenue which strengthens its credibility . By showcasing how there is a threat to the distribution of newspapers it raises awareness among society. It helps citizens understand what is going on in their local life. It highlights the structural challenges that journalists go through and not just how journalists have failed at their job.

The content of the article focuses on the consequences of the decline on local journalism such as  fewer resources, weaker local coverage, national stories substituting local ones and a less aware local society. It explains why local journalism has declined, due to fall in advertising, rising production costs and the pandemic. It mentions how even when newspaper companies are facing hardship some journalists and newspapers still continue to produce valuable information.

However, this article brings notable limitations such as the mention of only Britian and US does not focus on the global perspective of how journalists are being affected. It doesn't share the direct personal experiences the journalists went through during these times. It doesn't show examples of valuable journalists' work. The article may have bias towards traditional media as it is one without fully considering the proper usage of social media to spread news.

In conclusion, while this source is valuable, especially for specific and localized situations, it has imperfections when it comes to bias and no global context. It portrays the value of journalists in today's society and truly shows why journalists are a need.

# data[].attributes.body
This statistic is attained by interviews or surveys, or a primary source. The data is generally considered to be established within 2024, the author is unknown, probably created by multiple anonymous people. This report is garnered to raise awareness of distinguishing the practicality of a news as nowadays misinformation preaches, targeting people who invariably utilizes social media, principally young users to prevent being scammed. This source could be valuable in a brief period since this survey is being participated in majority of the earth in early 2024, nonetheless, this survey has the absence of participation from HK or India, which were both members of frequently applying social media daily, moreover it is solely participated by people above 18 and a small period in 2024, which could be easily expired as time passes.