Currency- The site is a
non-profit research and educational site that has been in existence since 1997.
It was formalized in 2007 and is currently up-to-date with regularly updated
articles covering a wide area of topics. All the links on the site are
functional.
Relevance- The site offers
detailed information on a wide range of topics. I view it as a good,
well-presented source of information for these topics.
Authority- The site and
articles are moderated and written by the site administrators. The biography
published on the site states their intention to produce accurate and credible
information encourages viewers to point out errors in information and contains
a link to a contact form so viewers can accomplish this. The authors themselves
don't list their credentials if they have any, but the name of the site
clarifies what it intends to do and I think it accomplishes it well. The site
is funded by donations made by viewers.
Accuracy- I believe the
information on the site is credible and accurate. Every individual article and
piece of information is cited and sourced at the end of the article.
Considering the information is gathered from multiple scholarly sources across
the internet, I assume that it has been through more than its fair share of
peer review. Information is presented in a professional and impartial
manner, though the site itself is somewhat bland; however I think this aspect
of the site is intentional in its pursuit of remaining an unbiased and
impartial source of information.
Purpose- The site contains
an "About Us" section that contains a mission statement and statement
of purpose for the site. It reads,"The mission of Just Facts is to
research and publish verifiable facts about the leading public policy issues of
our time. To accomplish this with impartiality and excellence, we abide
by Standards of
Credibility to determine what constitutes a credible fact and
what does not. Our vision is to equip individuals throughout the world
with facts that empower them to make truly informed decisions. This requires
authoritative facts that accurately convey big picture realities, not half-truths
or talking points." I feel that they accomplish this goal well by
remaining as neutral and impartial as possible in their articles.
Currency- The articles on the site are up-to-date and updated
regularly, almost daily. The links on the site are functional and all articles
are dated.
Relevance- The relevance of the articles published on the site
relate directly to current events involving government policy. However, the
information in the articles themselves seems somewhat irrelevant at times. Not
to say that the information is presented in an unprofessional or uneducated
manner, but it seems to veer off at times in certain articles while still presenting
detailed information on the subject to an extent.
Authority- The authors and editors of the site are listed
under staff in the about us section. Along with their names, it provides a
brief biography listing their credentials and experience. Every writer and
editor possesses a either a college degree in journalism or years of experience
in political journalism and in most cases both. The site declares no
affiliation with any political party or specific interest group and is run
independently and funded by donations from its viewers. However, the URL of the
site and the layout and articles archived in it contrast one another. From the
name, you would think that the site is free from bias and opinion to the best
knowledge of the editors, however it is filled with opinionated articles and
shadows of political party influence.
Accuracy- The
information on the site coincides with information I've found through web
searches on related topics at certain points, but its clear that the articles
that present the information are very opinionated. This is not necessarily a
bad thing, as a little opinion in any piece provides good balance; but it is
present in almost every article and even in the titles of some. Strongly
opinionated articles take away from the facts presented in them by making it
difficult for the reader to form their own opinions. Looking at how the
articles are presented leads me to believe that there is little to no peer review, and if so it may be
done by one editor who prefers opinionated articles. What's more is that many
of the articles contain no references or citations explaining where the
information came from leaving much to be desired on the topic of
credibility.
Purpose- The purpose
stated by the site reads, "...monitor the factual accuracy of what is said
by major U.S. political players in the form of TV ads, debates, speeches,
interviews and news releases. Our goal is to apply the best practices of both
journalism and scholarship, and to increase public knowledge and understanding."
While this is a clear goal that they accomplish well at certain times, they
fail at others due to their love of opinionated articles. Its's one thing to
point out discrepancies between written policy and speech used by candidates,
but its another to label these discrepancies with emotionally charged terms
that are bound to draw a reaction from the reader even if this was not the
intention of the writer.
Personally, I would use justfacts.com as
a source of information before factcheck.org. I say this
because when the subject is politics and you are not running for office or
involved with any political party and you yourself claim to be a fair and
impartial site that just presents the facts, that's all that you should do.
There is little room for opinion when you're goal is to remain a neutral,
credible source of information.
