Reading Online - New Literacies: Exploring Realism and Authenticity in Media Messages

Activity 4: Evaluating Web Sources

Responses to two Web sites related to the Oliver Stone film JFK from participants in a 1997 National Media Education conference workshop

Question: Which Web site is most believable to you?

I’d go back to “The Assassination Goes Hollywood!” only because it’s so organized. It’s easier to read and it’s logical. I think somebody who can chart ideas is likely to be smart and thoughtful -- it’s a sign of the intelligence of the author. But the “How Accurate...?” Web site just lays there. When I get to this one I thought, “Oh God, where do I start?”

The second one, “How Accurate...?” because “The Assassination Goes Hollywood!” makes me suspicious: it’s too glitzy, with the color images and the movies you can click on and play. That one makes me start to think this guy’s just trying to persuade me that the film is worthless.

I wouldn’t decide one site or the other; I don’t feel the need to place one as “more credible,” since each one may be partially correct. Who cares if the film is accurate or not?

The thing I don’t like about the table in “The Assassination Goes Hollywood!” is that it almost seems like they have to make each point fit into that format, so you almost feel like in some cases they might be forcing the structure.

I took a look at these references, the ones in “How Accurate...?” I mean, the man has made a scholarly effort. The fact of the matter is that we have to make up our own mind because both of these Web sites have a point of view and these documents -- it’s sort of like with Clinton and Monica Lewinsky. The only people who know what happened are Clinton and Monica Lewinsky. They were the only ones who were there. We weren’t there, Blaine [figure portrayed in the film] wasn’t there, Garrison [figure portrayed in the film] wasn’t there. We have to make up our own minds.

Michael Griffith’s cited sources [in “How Accurate...?”] are junk, in my opinion. You can’t automatically say, “Well, he cited his sources, he has page numbers. Voilà, he is more credible.” That would be wrong. Because in fact many of the authors that he may have cited may not have been that authoritative. They may have been conspiracy theorists themselves. They may have been relying on second- or third-hand evidence, so if we just say citing sources, we’re denying the complexity of what the evidence is really based upon.

Back to Activity 4
Back to article