Evaluating a City Press Release and an Advocacy Blog
Eighth graders research a proposed water-rate increase. They have two sources: a 300-word city utility press release announcing a 9% increase and citing infrastructure repairs, and a 700-word blog from a community advocacy group opposing the increase and citing a family's $70 monthly bill increase. In a seminar, students say the blog is 'biased' and therefore 'unreliable,' and the press release is 'factual' because it has numbers. Neither source links to the rate study; the blog includes a photo of a broken pipe; the press release quotes the utility director. Students have one class period to prepare. The teacher has two days before students write a source-based paragraph. The unit standard asks students to evaluate sources, and the principal wants a 'media literacy checklist' posted in every classroom.
1. Analyze how purpose and audience shape each source's selection of evidence, and explain the students' misconception.
Read the worked answer
The press release is written by the utility for residents and media; its purpose is to announce and justify the increase, so it foregrounds infrastructure needs and the director's explanation while omitting the rate study and any comparison to other cities. That selection is rhetorical, not necessarily false. The blog is written by advocates for residents; its purpose is to oppose the increase, so it foregrounds a family's $70 increase and the broken pipe photo, using a concrete anecdote to make the cost vivid. It may also omit the utility's capital budget. Students equate 'has a purpose' with 'is unreliable' and 'has numbers' with 'is factual.' But all sources select evidence, and numbers can be accurate yet incomplete. The relevant questions are: What claim is being made? What evidence is offered? What is missing? Can the key facts be verified elsewhere? Bias is a reason to corroborate, not an automatic reason to discard.
2. Design a two-day task that teaches corroboration and rhetorical analysis rather than a checklist.
Read the worked answer
Day one: students build a two-column claim-evidence map for each source. They identify the main claim, the two strongest pieces of evidence, and one thing the source does not tell them. Then they compare: both sources agree the rate is rising 9%; they disagree about whether the increase is justified. Students highlight where each source's purpose shows in word choice, such as 'investment' versus 'burden.' Day two: students search for one independent source, such as a public utility commission filing or a local news report, and add a third column. They write a paragraph that answers 'How should a resident weigh these sources?' and must use at least two sources and name one limitation of each. The task teaches that evaluation is a process of comparison and verification, not a checklist verdict. The teacher conferences with pairs, asking 'What would change your mind?' to push beyond confirmation.
3. What are the limits of a checklist, and what would you tell the principal?
Read the worked answer
A checklist can be useful as a starting point, but it has limits. It encourages binary judgments-source has an author, so it is credible-and it can substitute for reading. It also tends to treat 'bias' as disqualifying, which is not how civic information works; advocacy sources can provide evidence that official sources omit. A checklist cannot teach students to weigh competing claims, notice missing information, or corroborate. I would tell the principal that the department will post a short heuristic, not a compliance checklist: Who made this? For whom? What is the claim? What evidence is given and what is missing? What other source can confirm it? Then I would invite the principal to see students using it on the water-rate sources, so the focus stays on reasoning. The poster alone will not change thinking; the task design and discussion will. If the principal wants a visible artifact, the heuristic can be posted alongside student work that shows it in use.