Cornell Notes APA Citation: [Include the References entry for the article in APA format. For most of the articles we read in class, you can access the APA citation using the databases’ citation tools. Look at the tools that a database offers! When we discuss APA format in class, you will learn that while these databasegenerated citations are a good start, they are usually not completely correct. You will need to correct any errors in punctuation and capitalization and add or omit information as needed.] Cue Words: [Reread your notes and rethink the entire article based on your notes. Reduce each fact and idea in your notes to key words and phrases. Column on the left write down cue words, the word or phrase that you extracted from the fact or idea. The key words or phrases will act as memory cues.] Notes Written: [Record as many facts and ideas from the source as possible. Leave out unnecessary words. Use the key words only. Grammar rules are ignored. Write down a streamlined version of the article’s key points.] Summary: [Recapitulation is a sure-fire way to gain a deep understanding of facts and ideas in your notes, and reviewing summaries makes studying for exams a breeze. Take the time to summarize your notes, your understanding deepens—you have the whole picture instead of an assortment of facts. Your summary should be at least three complete, grammatically correct sentences.] Analysis/Reflection: [Reflection is thinking about and applying the facts and ideas that you have learned. Reflect on the material by asking yourself questions such as these: What is the significance of these facts? What principles are they based on? How can I apply them? How do they fit in with what I already know or what I have seen? What is beyond these facts and principles? To what extent do my personal observations and knowledge confirm the points that the author is making? This analysis/reflection should be at least five complete, grammatically correct sentences.] Cornell Notes APA Citation: Zimbalist, A. (1998). The economics of teams, stadiums and cities. Policy Studies Review 15 (1), 17-29. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.snhu.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/ login.aspx?direct=true&db=edb&AN=64252856&site=eds-live&scope=site Cue Words: Monopoly Venue NFL Stadium revenues Diminutive impact Economic impact Tax exemption Hoke bill Notes Written: • NFL franchises are scarce commodities—cities must compete for them and do so by offering facilities and tax breaks • New stadiums cost in excess of $200 billion; pork barrel projects often required to pay for them • NFL particularly relies less on ticket revenue than other sports • Zimbalist proposes sharing stadium revenues among teams • Sports teams have great cultural impact on cities, but economic impact is diminutive (low-skill workers employed, stadiums/arenas do not cover own operating costs • Zimbalist cites studies and examples • Consulting firms have produced favorable studies but do not account for new versus diverted net spending; make favorable assumptions about size of impacted area; assume that large portion of team salaries remains in local economy (pp. 19-20) • Zimbalist proposes hypothetical situations (Yankee Stadium) and uses examples (1984 Baltimore Colts, Camden Yards) Summary: Zimbalist argues that local officials are far too quick to mortgage their cities’ financial futures because they do not want to lose the chance of having a sports team in their communities. Publicly funded sports facilities are, in most cases, a money-losing investment because their economic impact on communities diminishes over time. Zimbalist cites several academic studies that assess the long-term economic prospects; he also critiques industry studies that paint a more positive picture of publicly funded facilities by pointing out their oversights and assumptions. The author also proposes a solution, strengthening the Hoke bill, to hold team owners accountable for facility expenses and to not allow them to hold communities hostage by threatening to leave if a new stadium is not constructed. Analysis/Reflection: This issue is one that most fans do not like to think about—who doesn’t want a sports team in their hometown? Elected officials are aware of the strong emotional pull that sports teams have over fans, so they do not want to anger voters by allowing teams to leave for communities that are willing to pay for these facilities. I do think that the tide is turning, however: while the 49ers left San Francisco for Santa Clara and the Braves left Atlanta for the suburbs, those moves have received a lot of criticism, and fans are rightly critical of these moves. People are not attending these games in the numbers that they did when the facilities were more centrally located. I do want to see teams and ownership bear more responsibility for building and maintaining their facilities. For example, the Carolina Panthers own and operate their own facility, Bank of America Stadium. Why can’t other teams follow this team’s example? The short answer is greed—ownership gets to keep more money if they are not contributing to the upkeep of their facilities. Social Media Users Must Start Checking Online News Sources Opposing Viewpoints Online Collection, 2017 From Opposing Viewpoints in Context “[F]ake news thrives on Facebook and Twitter, social media sites where we’re connected with our friends and have curated our own pages to reflect ourselves. Lulled into a false sense of security, we become less likely to scrutinize the information in front of us.” S. Shyam Sundar is a professor at Pennsylvania State University, where he founded the Media Effects Research Laboratory. Sundar has testified before the US Congress as a technology expert and is the editor-in-chief of the Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication. In the following viewpoint, the author explores the ways people consume and evaluate online news media. Sundar argues that fake news will continue to thrive until traditional news sources gain back their credibility. He also asserts that news media consumers must adopt stricter criteria for the sources they trust. Sundar concludes that consumers have developed a false confidence in their social media portals and have stopped questioning the credibility of the curated information they receive. As you read, consider the following questions: 1. What does the author mean when he refers to journalistic sourcing as “professional gatekeeping”? 2. What was the purpose of Sundar’s experiment on online news sources? Do you agree with his conclusion? 3. Do you consider your friends, family, and teachers to be trustworthy sources of information? Do you trust one group more than the others? Explain your answer. In recent weeks, the amount of online fake news that circulated during the final months of the presidential race is coming to light, a disturbing revelation that threatens to undermine the country’s democratic process. We’re already seeing some real-world consequences. After fake news stories implicated a Washington, D.C. pizza shop as the site of a Clinton-coordinated child sex ring, a man wielding an AR-15 assault rifle entered the store on Dec. 4 to “investigate” and fired shots. Much of the analysis, however, has focused on the people who create these false articles – whether it’s teenagers in Macedonia or satirical news sites – and what Facebook and Google can do to prevent its dissemination (https://theconversation.com/three-ways-facebook-could-reduce-fake-newswithout-resorting-to-censorship-69033). But fake news wouldn’t be a problem if people didn’t fall for it and share it. Unless we understand the psychology of online news consumption, we won’t be able to find a cure for what The New York Times calls a “digital virus.” Some have said that confirmation bias is the root of the problem – the idea that we selectively seek out information that confirms our beliefs, truth be damned. But this doesn’t explain why we fall for fake news about nonpartisan issues. A more plausible explanation is our relative inattention to the credibility of the news source. I’ve been studying the psychology of online news consumption for over two decades, and one striking finding across several experiments is that online news readers don’t seem to really care about the importance of journalistic sourcing – what we in academia refer to as “professional gatekeeping.” This laissez-faire attitude, together with the difficulty of discerning online news sources, is at the root of why so many believe fake news. Do people even consider news editors credible? Since the earliest days of the internet, fake news has circulated online. In the 1980s there were online discussion communities called Usenet newsgroups where hoaxes would be shared among cliques of conspiracy theorists and sensation-mongers. Sometimes these conspiracies would spill out into the mainstream. For example, 20 years ago, Pierre Salinger, President Kennedy’s former press secretary, went on TV to claim that TWA Flight 800 was shot down by a U.S. Navy missile based on a document he had been emailed. But these slip-ups were rare due to the presence of TV and newspaper gatekeepers. When they did happen, they were quickly retracted if the facts didn’t check out. Today, in the age of social media, we receive news not only via email, but also on a variety of other online platforms. Traditional gatekeepers have been cast aside; politicians and celebrities have direct access to millions of followers. If they fall for fake news, any hoax can go viral, spreading via social media to millions without proper vetting and fact-checking. Back in the 1990s, as part of my dissertation, I conducted the first-ever experiment on online news sources (https://onlinelibrary-wileycom.ezproxy.snhu.edu/doi/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2001.tb02872.x/abstract). I mocked up a news site and showed four groups of participants the same articles, but attributed them to different sources: news editors, a computer, other users of the online news site and the participants themselves (through a pseudo-selection task, where they thought they had chosen the news stories from a larger set). When we asked the participants to rate the stories on attributes tied to credibility – believability, accuracy, fairness and objectivity – we were surprised to discover that all the participants made similar evaluations, regardless of the source. They did disagree on other attributes, but none favored journalistic sourcing. For example, when a story was attributed to other users, participants actually liked reading it more. And when news editors had selected a story, participants thought the quality was worse than when other users had selected ostensibly the same story. Even the computer as the gatekeeper scored better on story quality than news editors. The problem of layered sources When it comes to internet news, it seems that the standing of professional news agencies – the original gatekeepers – has taken a hit. One reason could be the amount of sources behind any given news item. Imagine checking your Facebook news feed and seeing something your friend has shared: a politician’s tweet of a newspaper story. Here, there’s actually a chain of five sources (newspaper, politician, Twitter, friend and Facebook). All of them played a role in transmitting the message, obscuring the identity of the original source. This kind of “source layering” is a common feature of our online news experience. Which of these sources is most likely to resonate with readers as the “main source?” My students and I approached this issue by analyzing news aggregator sites of varying credibility, such as Yahoo News (high credibility) and Drudge Report (low). These sites will often republish or link to articles that have originated somewhere else, so we wanted to know how often readers paid attention to original sources in the stories appearing on these websites. We found readers will usually pay attention to the chain of sourcing only if the topic of the story is really important to them (https://jmq-sagepub-com.ezproxy.snhu.edu/content/88/4/719). Otherwise, they’ll be swayed by the source or website that republished or posted the story – in other words, the vehicle that directly delivered them the story. It’s not surprising, then, to hear people say they got their news from “sources” that don’t create and edit news articles: Verizon, Comcast, Facebook and, by proxy, their friends. When friends – and the self – become the source When reading online news, the closest source is often one of our friends. Because we tend to trust our friends, our cognitive filters weaken, making a social media feed fertile ground for fake news to sneak into our consciousness. The persuasive appeal of peers over experts is compounded by the fact that we tend to let our guard down even more when we encounter news in our personal space. Increasingly, most of our online destinations – whether they’re portal sites (such as Yahoo News and Google News), social media sites, retail sites or search engines – have tools that allow us to customize the site, tailoring it to our own interests and identity (for example, choosing a profile photo or a news feed about one’s favorite sports team). Our research shows that internet users are less skeptical of information that appears in these customized environments. In an experiment published in the current issue of the journal Media Psychology (https://www-tandfonlinecom.ezproxy.snhu.edu/doi/abs/10.1080/15213269.2015.1121829?journalCode=hmep20), a former student, Hyunjin Kang, and I found that study participants who customized their own online news portal tended to agree with statements like “I think the interface is a true representation of who I am” and “I feel the website represents my core personal values.” We wanted to see if this enhanced identity changed how they processed information. So we introduced fake health news stories – about the negative effects of applying sunscreen and drinking pasteurized milk – into their portal. We discovered that participants who had customized their news portal were less likely to scrutinize the fake news and more likely to believe it. What’s more, they showed a higher tendency to act on the advice offered in the stories (“I intend to stop using sunscreen”) and recommend that their friends do the same. These findings explain why fake news thrives on Facebook and Twitter, social media sites where we’re connected with our friends and have curated our own pages to reflect ourselves. Lulled into a false sense of security, we become less likely to scrutinize the information in front of us. We can’t distinguish between real news and fake news because we don’t even question the credibility of the source of news when we are online. Why would we, when we think of ourselves or our friends as the source? Full Text: COPYRIGHT 2017 Gale, Cengage Learning. Source Citation Sundar, S. Shyam. "Social Media Users Must Start Checking Online News Sources." Opposing Viewpoints Online Collection, Gale, 2017. Opposing Viewpoints in Context, ezproxy.snhu.edu/login?url=http://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/KCQRIU4 67955724/OVI C?u=nhc_main&xid=67a2641c. Accessed 1 Aug. 2017. Originally published as "Why do we fall for fake news?" The Conversation, 7 Dec. 2016. Gale Document Number: GALE|KCQRIU467955724
Purchase answer to see full attachment