Who Made This and Why?
Every piece of media was made by someone, for some reason. A news article was written by a journalist working for an outlet owned by a corporation with its own interests. A video was produced by a creator seeking views, sponsored by a brand. A study was funded by an organization with a stake in the findings. Understanding who made something and why they made it is foundational to evaluating what it means.
Why Authorship Matters
Media does not emerge neutrally. Creators make choices—what to include, what to omit, how to frame, what language to use—shaped by their knowledge, beliefs, interests, and incentives. Knowing the creator helps predict these choices.
This does not mean that all sources are equally biased or that no one can be trusted. It means that understanding the source helps evaluate the content.
Questions to Ask
Who Created This?
Is there a named author? What is their background, expertise, and track record? For organizations, who owns them, funds them, and governs them?
Anonymous content should be viewed skeptically. Pseudonymous content common online lacks accountability that named authorship provides.
What Are Their Incentives?
How does the creator benefit from this content? Financial incentives (advertising, sales, funding), political incentives (advancing an agenda), social incentives (reputation, audience growth), and ideological incentives all shape content.
Incentives do not determine content but predict likely biases. A study funded by an industry may still be accurate, but the funding relationship is relevant information.
Who Is the Intended Audience?
Content is shaped for its audience. Political content for partisans differs from content for persuadable voters. Trade publications for professionals differ from consumer publications. Understanding the intended audience reveals what the creator is trying to achieve.
What Is the Purpose?
Content serves different purposes: informing, persuading, entertaining, selling, mobilizing. The same topic can be covered with different purposes, producing very different content. Identifying purpose helps evaluate appropriately.
What Is Missing?
Every piece of media includes some things and excludes others. What perspectives are absent? What information would change the impression? What questions does the content not address? What goes unsaid may be as important as what is said.
Applying Source Analysis
News Media
News outlets vary in reliability, bias, and purpose. Understanding ownership (corporate, nonprofit, public, partisan), funding models (advertising, subscription, donations), editorial standards, and track record helps evaluate news content.
Media bias charts attempt to map outlets on reliability and bias dimensions. These tools are imperfect but provide starting points for source evaluation.
Social Media Content
Social media content often lacks clear authorship. Viral posts may be shared far from their origins. Understanding who originally created content—and why—requires investigation that most users do not undertake.
Influencers may have financial relationships with brands they do not disclose. Content that appears personal may be sponsored. Questions about incentives apply particularly strongly to social media.
Research and Studies
Studies are not neutral facts but products of researchers with methods, funders, and publication incentives. Understanding who funded research, what methods were used, where it was published, and how it was received by the field helps evaluate claims made from it.
User-Generated Content
Reviews, forum posts, and comments come from unknown individuals. Some are genuine; some are astroturfed (fake grassroots content), some are promotional, some are trolling. Patterns and corroboration help evaluate authenticity.
Limits of Source Analysis
Source analysis is a starting point, not a conclusion. Good sources can publish errors; biased sources can publish truths. Evaluating content requires considering the source alongside the evidence and arguments presented.
Excessive source skepticism can lead to dismissing everything, which serves no one. The goal is informed evaluation, not blanket distrust.
The Question
If all media is created by someone with purposes and incentives, then asking who made it and why is essential to evaluation. How can these questions become habitual rather than occasional? What information about sources should be more visible? And how should educators teach source analysis without promoting either naive trust or corrosive cynicism?