Case Study #2 Russian Disinformation, Lessons Learned From the MH17 Shootdown 1. The case study references various internet sources, including the following websites: www.bbc.com/news/world-europe Russian tabloid Komsomolskaya Pravda CNN Newsweek www.bellingcat.com Buzzfeed Rollingstone www.theguardian.com www.cbc.ca Which of these should be investigated more closely? Why? 2. Identify the most suspect internet source in the case study, and complete the following Canadian Checklist for Evaluating Internet Sources on that source. (Checklist from Hibbs Pherson & Pherson, Critical Thinking for Strategic Intelligence, pp.147-148) Name of Website URL / Address Assessed Reliability: Highlight or embolden the relevant number: Low 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 High 1. Type Highlight or embolden your choice: Advocacy Business Info/Ref News Personal Entertainment Meta-Tags - Who are they trying to attract to their website? Key words? (In your browser, click on View / Source or Tools / Web Developer / Page Source) Older Versions - How did the site evolve? (Check www.archive.org) 2. Content How reliable is the information? Highlight or embolden your choice: Reliable Can't say Unreliable Accuracy - Errors of fact or logic - Misspellings, poor grammar - Incorrect dates Authority - Author unqualified, uncited - Poor reputation - Sources undocumented Objectivity - Any blatant bias (terms, etc.)? - Persuasive aim? - Single or multiple point of view? - Any sponsors or advertising? Currency - Out-of-date references? - When was it last update? - Any dead links? (Also check www.brokenlinkcheck.com) Coverage - Any significant omissions? 3. Owner/Author Full legal company name: - Check links to copyright and privacy statements. Who registered the domain? Who incorporated the company? Officers / directors? 4. Affiliations and Associations Who do they link to? Shared premises? Tip: Google phone numbers and addresses. Who links to them? - Nature of association - Effect on credibility What do others say about them? (Google names. Check for urban legend, hoax, or fraud.) Is it consistent with similar sites? 3. Do any of the exceptions to traditional sourcing rules apply to the sourcing used in this case study? Why or why not?