Evaluating websites

The National Word
The National Word website is very informal, and clearly labeled as “America’s Blog,” so any information from that site would have to taken as being very subjective. It is difficult to find much information on the site or the primary writer, William Brady, which is rather odd, even for a blog. He writes primarily about politics, but his writing is quite opinionated and the topics often unimportant on a national scale. No accuracy issues jumped out at me. The site’s layout is very simple, and so looks like something almost anyone could put together. Also, the last blog update seems to be from November of 2008. Even worse, there is a disclaimer at the bottom that attempts to protect the author from being persecuted for copyright infringement. So in conclusion, the site does not seem very reputable or the information expressed trustworthy.

Air Congress
The producer of this site, K. Daniel Glover, used to be a journalist (though with what media it doesn’t say), but he also runs a social networking site for conservatives, which means that the content will probably lean to the right. The content is obviously political, as the site claims to be the source of all information from Capitol Hill. While I would not trust the writers on that site to be objective, much of the information on there comes directly from politicians (videos, speeches, podcasts, etc.), and so while the information comes direct from the source, the politicians themselves are obviously going to be subjective. Also, the work seems to be fairly well put together, grammar and spelling-wise. The site also does not seem to be updated very often – the lead article is from September of 2008, and the About section was last updated in November of 2006. The visual is good and clean, however, and seems like a fairly decently put together site. Nonetheless, I would not trust the site to be an objective news source.

The Daily Dish (Andrew Sullivan)
The Daily Dish is under the Atlantic, which gives it reputability, but it is still a blog or column, so it will not be subjective. Yet his journalistic background and long history of writing for reputable media (like Time Magazine) means that what he says is probably important, and implies that the facts he uses are probably legit. Also, there are no issues with spelling and grammar. The content is primarily political, with a lot of satire, and so draws attention to important issues. His blogs are frequent and so up-to-date, and the site obviously has a clean look, as part of the Atlantic. So while I would not expect Sullivan’s writings to be objective, I think they may be worth reading if you keep in mind his biases and intent.

Independent Media
Independent Media was founded and is presumably run by members of social organizations and other activists, and works with the purpose of benefiting minorities and those suffering around the globe, so the writing will probably have a pro-social bias. The writers are from around the globe, but all have the same goal in mind. Also, because the site allows so many people to write, there is no guarantee that the articles are factual, and with no editors, mistakes and typos are likely. However, the site looks good, the issues seem to be of pretty high importance, and the site seems up to date. Still, the site exists more for the purpose of raising awareness and money for social injustice than for journalistic importance, and I would not trust it to be reliable.