Jagla 1

Agatha Jagla
Dr. Melina Martin
English 1102-130
April 2, 2019
Determining Credibility: News Article Vs. a Scholarly Source

Living in the internet age means having unlimited access to a vast amount of information

at our fingertips. The internet has a multitude of newspaper and magazine websites where new

information is posted every day. Websites such as these provide a great quantity of the latest

information that's not necessarily always the best quality. On the other hand, harder to access

information that comes from scholarly journals tends to be more reliable. Here, information is

updated less frequently as it contains thoughtful scholarly research. Great examples of such

articles are Carl Zimmer’s article “Genetically Modified People are Walking Among Us” which

was written for the ​New York Times​ and Katherine Drabiak’s scholarly article called “Untangling

the Promises of Human Genome Editing” written for the​ Journal of Law, Medicine, and Ethics.

Scholarly articles from academic journals are way more credible sources of information than

news articles because of the author's credentials, publisher’s intention, and the content and depth

of the article itself.

To determine the credibility of a source, one must first determine the credibility of the

author. If an author is not highly educated or is writing about a topic that's not in their field of

study, how is anyone supposed to trust the information they are putting forth? Thus, it is no

surprise that the authors of both articles have excellent academic credentials to back their

acclaimed reputations. According to Carl Zimmer’s online CV, he received his BA (Bachelor of

Arts degree) in English from Yale University in 1987 (carlzimmer.com). It is important to

 Jagla 2

mention that although Yale is a very credible school, Zimmer is not professionally educated in

his field of writing which is scientific news. Similarly, Katherine Drabiak, author of the scholarly

article, also has a Bachelors of the Arts degree which she earned from the University of Santa

Barbara California. In addition, she graduated from Indiana University School of Law with a

Juris Doctor degree. She is, therefore, according to her about page “licensed to practice law in

Indiana” (katherinedrabiakjd.com). Unlike Zimmer, this makes her an expert in her field because

her journal articles focus on the ethical implications of many scientific issues, such as genetic

engineering.

Besides just having excellent academic credentials, both authors have lots of experience

in their field. However, they differ in the type of experience they have. Since Carl Zimmer is a

journalist, he has experience running a magazine. He was both the senior editor and researcher

for ​Discover​ magazine for many years before he became a science journalist for the ​New York

Times​ (carlzimmer.com). Similarly, Katherine Drabiak is an active researcher who writes about

her findings. According to her website, her goal is to “​develop standards for adapting legal and

ethical [medical] practices”​(katherinedrabiakjd.com)​. This has prompted her to write ​numerous

articles based on her own research for academic journals such as the ​Journal of Law, Medicine,

and Ethics.​ Writing articles based on one’s own research produces more credible information

because it is backed up by real-life evidence. Newspaper articles written about current events

provide less trustworthy information because almost anyone can make up or misinterpret news

and write an article about it.

Besides just authorship, the publisher is also a crucial factor that influences the credibility

of a source. Both the popular press publisher and the editorial board of the academic journal are
 Jagla 3

big advocators of ethical journalism. According to the ​New York Times​ editorial page, the

newspaper is focused on “covering the news as impartial as possible” (nytimes.com). This means

that all of their articles lack bias. By having neutral articles, the newspaper is simply providing

information and allowing readers to make their own judgments. Since the​ New York Times ​is a

neutral source, one can trust that Carl Zimmer’s articles are indeed a reliable source of the latest

scientific news. However, unlike the ​New York Times, t​ he ​Journal of Law, Medicine, and Ethics

peer reviews all of its articles before publishing them (aslme.org). Peer-reviewed articles are

more credible because their information has been declared legit by multiple scholars and experts.

Peer-reviewed articles are harder to find but they are definitely worth seeking out. They ensure

that the article has undergone extensive revisions and contains only the most reliable

information.

Nevertheless, the most important factor that determines an article’s credibility is its

content and depth. No matter what else the source has going for it, such as a credible author or

publisher, if the information presented in the article can’t be trusted, the source is no good.

A way to establish credibility from an article’s content is to see what information the

author does or does not include. The depth of an article says a lot about how useful and

trustworthy its information is. For instance, Carl Zimmer’s news article is exactly that. A news

article. All it does is inform readers of an event that occurred while marginally mentioning the

implications of the event (i.e scientists are starting to think that mitochondrial gene replacement

therapy is beneficial) (nytimes.com). This article lacks depth because it does not explain or back

up the implications with scientific research or facts. This is where Katherine Drabiak’s scholarly

article come in hand. Drabiak’s article has lots of depth to it since it goes it great detail about the
 Jagla 4

effects that came about from recent studies on the benefits of genome editing. For example, the

article mentions how domestic and global laws have changed as a result of these findings.

According to the scholarly article, “until recently, there has been an unambiguous global

consensus against human genome editing” (Drabiak 995). But now, with so many scientists

arguing against this, there is a “campaign to relabel genome editing as a curative therapy rather

than an ethically unacceptable experiment” (Drabiak 996). This shows depth in Drabiak’s article

because instead of just saying that opinions are changing, it explains why opinions about genome

editing are changing. It also talks about what the results of these changes are (i.e that genome

editing could be the new treatment for genetic diseases). Having more depth equates to a more

credible source because the author does not leave anything out. This shows that the article is not

hiding anything or trying to persuade its readers with misleading information.

In addition to depth, the sources that an author uses also dictates the credibility of the

article. Unfortunately for Carl Zimmer, the majority of his sources are other news articles about

the same subject such as other​ New York Times​ articles and an article from ​Ap News

(nytimes.com). The fact that others have written about the same event that he has contributes to

his credibility as it proves that he did not makeup his information. However, the majority of this

information has not been verified by scholars or experts. Thus, there is no guarantee that it is

totally accurate. On the contrary, Katherine Drabiak’s scholarly article cites ninety-three sources

(Drabiak 1003-1009). Upon closer inspection, a vast majority of these sources appear to be from

academic journals with a few website articles added in. Having so many references definitely

makes the scholarly article more credible. It shows that the author did her research and is well

educated on her topic. Additionally, the wide variety of sources shows that the Drabiak didn’t
 Jagla 5

limit herself. This demonstrates that her article is an accurate portrayal of all of the information

pertaining to her topic. It doesn't just focus on one aspect of the subject.

The fact that Katherine Drabiak’s scholarly article has ninety-three sources proves just

how much information is available for any topic. Nevertheless, this doesn't mean that all of it is

quality information. That's why it is very important to analyze the authorship, publisher, content,

and depth of every source in order to determine its reliability. For the most part, scholarly articles

written for academic journals tend to be more credible as they are written for a specific goal. The

goal being to educate other experts in the field. If these articles are the sources that experts use to

increase their knowledge, one can use them to expand their own proficiency.
 Jagla 6

Works Cited

“About.” ​Katherine Drabiak, JD,​ katherinedrabiakjd.com/about/.

“Carl Zimmer Web CV.” ​Carlzimmer.com​, 2018,

carlzimmer.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/CARL-ZIMMER-WEB-CV-12-2018.pdf.

Drabiak, Katherine. “Untangling the Promises of Human Genome Editing.” ​Journal of Law,

Medicine & Ethics​, vol. 46, no. 4, Winter 2018, pp. 991–1009. ​EBSCOhost​,

doi:10.1177/1073110518822001.

“Ethical Journalism.” ​The New York Times​, The New York Times, 5 Jan. 2018,

www.nytimes.com/editorial-standards/ethical-journalism.html.

“Journal of Law, Medicine, and Ethics .” ​ASLME,​ aslme.org/publications/.

Zimmer, Carl. “Genetically Modified People Are Walking Among Us.” ​The New York Times​,

The New York Times, 1 Dec. 2018.