Written February 13, 2016
The question of whether the levees in Hurricane Katrina had been blown up or even suited for a hurricane of that stature was a big issue for a while in New Orleans. The news of blowing the levees up during Hurricane Betsy had left a sour taste in the local’s mouths, causing the investigation of the levees during this hurricane to be frantic. In order to find the truth about what had happened, one must find a trustworthy source of information. The way someone can find out this information is through assessing the time it was written, the publisher, and author(s).
Assessing the time of an article may seem like a little thing, but can be a huge difference in sources. For example, if one wanted to know the direct aftermath of Katrina then an article set in the same year of the disaster would be a good source to look at. If one looked at a source that was written 5 years after the disaster, it would be very different. However, a source 5 years after Katrina would be a good source if one wanted to know how much Katrina really impacted the community of New Orleans. The article from the Washington Post, “Experts Say Faulty Levees Caused Much of Flooding”, was written in September of 2005 while the hurricane hit in August of that year. The article shows how quickly scientists and researchers were working to find the solution and how much they had already uncovered in such a short amount of time. Besides the time of the article, knowing who wrote it is another thing to factor in to whether the source is a good one or not.
The publisher is the broad section of analyzing a source to see if it is a trustworthy one. In the case of The Washington Post, it is a reliable source. It is a major newspaper that is able to represent news through interviews, research, and sources. The Washington Post is actually sometimes considered one of America’s greatest newspapers. However, the Washington Post contains many reporters, so it’s with the help of teamwork that the Washington Post got its reputable title. The next question is how reliable are the people writing for the Washington Post?
This particular article from the Washington Post was written by two authors. The first author is Michael Grunwald while the other is Susan B. Glasser. After doing some research on the authors, one can see that Grunwald seems to be a very reliable journalist. He had won several awards for his writing and now works for Time Magazine (Wikipedia). Glasser, on the other hand, had not achieved as much as Grunwald. She had been assistant managing editor for the Washington Post, but was actually removed from her position after she had spread bad morale to her coworkers. She had not lost her job, however, but was just demoted. Even though Glasser had been demoted, she was still praised as a fantastic journalist, which continues to prove that the article is a reliable one (The New York Times).
All in all, there are many factors to think about when finding a reliable article. One must sometimes research a source in order to write a paper rather than just assuming it’s a good article and writing a paper with false facts. Time can play a big role, as sometimes facts can change as new proof develops in the future. Publishers are also important since it is the face of a large group of people. Journalists/ authors need to work together to give the publisher a reputable name, so research on these workers can also be important. In conclusion, this article from the Washington Post is a reliable one.
Works Cited
Grunwald, Michael, and Susan B. Glasser. “Experts Say Faulty Levees Caused Much of Flooding.” Washington Post. The Washington Post, 2005. Web. 13 Feb. 2016.
“Michael Grunwald.” Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation. Web. 13 Feb. 2016. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Grunwald>.
Stout, David. “Washington Post Removes an Assistant Managing Editor.” The New York Times. The New York Times, 2008. Web. 13 Feb. 2016.
Ink and Crystals 