Transparency is critical to our credibility with the public and our subscribers. Whenever possible, we pursue information on the record. When a newsmaker insists on background or off-the-record ground rules, we must adhere to a strict set of guidelines, enforced by AP news managers.
Under AP's rules, material from anonymous sources may be used only if:
1. The material is information and not opinion or speculation, and is vital to the report.
2. The information is not available except under the conditions of anonymity imposed by the source.
3. The source is reliable, and in a position to have direct knowledge of the information.
Reporters who intend to use material from anonymous sources must get approval from their news manager before sending the story to the desk. The manager is responsible for vetting the material and making sure it meets AP guidelines. The manager must know the identity of the source, and is obligated, like the reporter, to keep the source's identity confidential. Only after they are assured that the source material has been vetted by a manager should editors and producers allow it to be used.
Reporters should proceed with interviews on the assumption they are on the record. If the source wants to set conditions, these should be negotiated at the start of the interview. At the end of the interview, the reporter should try once again to move onto the record some or all of the information that was given on a background basis.
The AP routinely seeks and requires more than one source when sourcing is anonymous. Stories should be held while attempts are made to reach additional sources for confirmation or elaboration. In rare cases, one source will be sufficient – when material comes from an authoritative figure who provides information so detailed that there is no question of its accuracy.
We must explain in the story why the source requested anonymity. And, when it’s relevant, we must describe the source's motive for disclosing the information. If the story hinges on documents, as opposed to interviews, the reporter must describe how the documents were obtained, at least to the extent possible.
The story also must provide attribution that establishes the source's credibility; simply quoting "a source" is not allowed. We should be as descriptive as possible: "according to top White House aides" or "a senior official in the British Foreign Office." The description of a source must never be altered without consulting the reporter.
We must not say that a person declined comment when that person the person is already quoted anonymously. And we should not attribute information to anonymous sources when it is obvious or well known. We should just state the information as fact.
Stories that use anonymous sources must carry a reporter's byline. If a reporter other than the bylined staffer contributes anonymous material to a story, that reporter should be given credit as a contributor to the story.
All complaints and questions about the authenticity or veracity of anonymous material – from inside or outside the AP – must be promptly brought to the news manager's attention.
Not everyone understands “off the record” or “on background” to mean the same things. Before any interview in which any degree of anonymity is expected, there should be a discussion in which the ground rules are set explicitly.
These are the AP’s definitions:
On the record. The information can be used with no caveats, quoting the source by name.
Off the record. The information cannot be used for publication. Background. The information can be published but only under conditions negotiated with the source. Generally, the sources do not want their names published but will agree to a description of their position. AP reporters should object vigorously when a source wants to brief a group of reporters on background and try to persuade the source to put the briefing on the record.
Deep background. The information can be used but without attribution. The source does not want to be identified in any way, even on condition of anonymity.
In general, information obtained under any of these circumstances can be pursued with other sources to be placed on the record.
ANONYMOUS SOURCES IN MATERIAL FROM OTHER NEWS SOURCES
Reports from other news organizations based on anonymous sources require the most careful scrutiny when we consider them for our report.
AP's basic rules for anonymous source material apply to material from other news outlets just as they do in our own reporting: The material must be factual and obtainable no other way. The story must be truly significant and newsworthy. Use of anonymous material must be authorized by a manager. The story we produce must be balanced, and comment must be sought.
Further, before picking up such a story we must make a bona fide effort to get it on the record, or, at a minimum, confirm it through our own reporting. We shouldn't hesitate to hold the story if we have any doubts. If another outlet’s anonymous material is ultimately used, it must be attributed to the originating news organization and note its description of the source.
ATTRIBUTION
Anything in the AP news report that could reasonably be disputed should be attributed. We should deliver the full name of a source and as much information as needed to identify the source and explain why the person s credible. Where appropriate, include a source's age; title; name of company, organization or government department; and hometown. If we quote someone from a written document – a report, email or news release -- we should say so. Information taken from the internet must be vetted according to our standards of accuracy and attributed to the original source. File, library or archive photos, audio or videos must be identified as such. For lengthy stories, attribution can be contained in an extended editor's note detailing interviews, research and methodology.
Use this graphic organizer to help students compare and contrast information from different sources of their choosing while researching a relevant topic. Guiding questions help students closely examine each source for credibility and reliability, and reflection questions on the second page get students to dig deeper into similarities and differences between types of sources. This worksheet provides essential practice evaluating sources for research, an important part of a middle school literacy curriculum.
For additional value, check out the accompanying Evaluating Sources for Research lesson plan.
Grade
Subject
View aligned standards
The study of mollusks has captured the interest of amateur and scientist alike for many centuries. The National Museum of Natural History receives numerous requests from the general public for information on mollusks. We hope that the information contained in our new on-line Selected Sources of Information on Mollusks will be of help to the beginning shell collector as well as the amateur conchologist and malacologist. This bibliography is not comprehensive and is meant to serve only as a guide to selected references.
Selected Sources of Information on Mollusks has undergone a substantial change in format as well as a thorough revision to produce a more streamlined publication. To that end we have eliminated several sections and combined others to avoid redundancy in titles. The section listing shell clubs has been deleted because this information is best obtained by writing to one of the national malacological organizations which we are continuing to list or by checking the Internet.
The publications listed may not be obtained from the Smithsonian Institution. Most of the references cited may be consulted at local libraries, requested through an interlibrary loan or purchased through local bookstores. Some books are out of print and would be available only from a secondhand book dealer.
Caldrey, Jennifer. Shells. Eyewitness Explorer Series. New York: DK Publishing, 1993. 64 pp., many illus.
Dudley, Ruth H. Sea Shells. New York: Thomas Y. Crowell, 1953. 149 pp., 62 drawings.
Evans, Eva Knox. The Adventure Book of Shells. Irvington-on-Hudson, NY: Capitol, 1955. 93 pp., many illus.
Farmer, Wesley M. Sea-Slug Gastropods. Tempe, AZ: Wesley M. Farmer Enterprises, 1980. 177 pp. 157 species drawn by author. Identification and coloring book.
Florian, Douglas. Discovering Seashells. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1986. 32 pp., color drawings.
Hansen, Judith. Seashells in My Pocket: A Child's Guide to Exploring the Atlantic Coast from Maine to North Carolina. Boston: Appalachian Mountain Club Books, 1988. 124 pp., illus.
Hunt, Bernice Kohn. The Beachcomber's Book. New York: Viking Press, 1970. 96 pp., illus.
Hutchinson, William M. A Child's Book of Sea Shells. New York: Maxton, 1954. 30 pp., illus. in color and black-and-white.
Low, Donald. The How and Why Wonder Book of Seashells. Los Angeles: Price, Stern, Sloan, 1987. 48 pp., illus.
Myers, Arthur. Sea Creatures Do Amazing Things. New York: Random House, 1981. 70 pp., illus.
Paige, David. A Day in the Life of a Marine Biologist. Mahwah, NJ: Troll Associates, 1981. 32 pp., color photos.
Pallotta, Jerry. The Ocean Alphabet Book. Chicago: Children's Press, 1991. 28 pp., color illus.
Podendorf, Illa. The True Book of Pebbles and Shells. Chicago: Children's Press, 1954. 47 pp., illus.
Sabin, Louis. Wonders of the Sea. Mahwah, NJ: Troll Associates, 1982. 32 pp., color illus.
Whybrow, Solene. The Life of Animals with Shells: A Simple Introduction to the Way in Which Animals with Shells Live and Behave. London: Macdonald Educational, 1975. 63 pp., illus.
Return to Table of Contents
Abbott, R. Tucker. Introducing Sea Shells. Princeton, NJ: D. Van Nostrand, 1955. 10 color and black-and-white plates, text figs.
______. Seashells of North America: A Guide to Field Identification. Under the editorship of Herbert S. Zim. New York: Golden Press, 1968.
______. Seashells of the World. Under the editorship of Herbert S. Zim. 2nd ed. New York: Golden Press, 1987. 48 pp., color illus.
______. Shells: Nature in Photography. New York: Portland House, 1989. 210 pp., 196 color illus.
Cameron, Roderick. Shells. New York: Octopus Books, 1972 (c.1961). 128 pp., 95 figs., 32 color plates.
Cate, Jean M., and Selma Raskin. It's Easy to Say Crepidula! (krehPIDuluh): a phonetic guide to pronunciation of the scientific names of sea shells and a glossary of terms frequently used in malacology. Santa Monica, CA: Pretty Penny Press, 1986. 153 pp.
Fair, Ruth H. Shell Collector's Guide. Rutland, VT: Charles E. Tuttle, 1976. 213 pp.
Harasewych, M.G. Shells: Jewels from the Sea. New York: Rizzoli, 1989. 224 pp., 210 color illus.
Jacobson, Morris K., and William K. Emerson. Wonders of the World of Shells: Sea, Land, and Fresh-water. New York: Dodd, Mead, 1971. 80 pp., illus.
Johns, Veronica P. She Sells Seashells. New York: Funk and Wagnalls, 1968. 198 pp., illus.
Johnstone, Kathleen Y. Sea Treasure: A Guide to Shell Collecting. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1957. 242 pp., 8 color plates, numerous text figs.
Major, Alan P. Collecting World Sea Shells. Edinburgh: J. Bartholomew, 1974. 187 pp., illus.
Melvin, A. Gordon. Seashell Parade: Fascinating Facts, Pictures and Stories. Rutland, VT: Charles E. Tuttle, 1973. 369 pp., 75 illus.
Murray, Sonia. Seashell Collectors' Handbook and Identifier. New York: Sterling, 1975. 240 pp., color plates.
Oliver, Arthur P.H. The Larousse Guide to Shells of the World. New York: Larousse, 1980. 320 pp., color illus.
Sabelli, Bruno. Simon and Schuster's Guide to Shells. Edited by Harold S. Feinberg. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1980. 512 pp., 1,230 color illus.
Saul, Mary. Shells: An Illustrated Guide to a Timeless and Fascinating World. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1974. 192 pp., illus.
Stix, Hugh, Marguerite Stix, and R. Tucker Abbott. The Shell: Five Hundred Million Years of Inspired Design. New York: Abradale Press/H. N. Abrams, 1988. 200 pp., 203 illus., including 82 plates in color.
Travers, Louise A. The Romance of Shells, in Nature and Art. New York: Barrows, 1962. 136 pp., 8 color plates, text figs.
Violette, Paul E. Shelling in the Sea of Cortez. Tucson: Dale Stuart King, 1964. 95 pp., illus.
Zinn, Donald J. The Beach Strollers Handbook, from Maine to Cape Hatteras. 2nd ed. Chester, CT: Globe Pequot, 1985. 246 pp., illus.
Return to Table of Contents
Prepared by the Department of Systematic Biology, Invertebrate Zoology,
National Museum of Natural History, in cooperation with Public Inquiry Services,
Smithsonian Institution
Defense lawyers say FTX founder Sam Bankman-Fried can't adequately prepare for trial in six weeks while in jail without proper access to computers, necessary medications to help him concentrate, and a better diet than bread, water and peanut butter
August 22
Newsletters
Subscribing to Daily Herald email newsletters is an easy way to get news, sports, lifestyle and entertainment information delivered directly to you!
Sign up for one or many of the newsletters to begin receiving the most up-to-date news for the Chicago Suburbs.
Subscribing to Daily Herald email newsletters is an easy way to get news, sports, lifestyle and entertainment information delivered directly to you!
Sign up for one or many of the newsletters to begin receiving the most up-to-date news for the Chicago Suburbs.
It was the social-science equivalent of Barbenheimer weekend: four blockbuster academic papers, published in two of the world’s leading journals on the same day. Written by elite researchers from universities across the United States, the papers in Nature and Science each examined different aspects of one of the most compelling public-policy issues of our time: how social media is shaping our knowledge, beliefs and behaviors.
Relying on data collected from hundreds of millions of Facebook users over several months, the researchers found that, unsurprisingly, the platform and its algorithms wielded considerable influence over what information people saw, how much time they spent scrolling and tapping online, and their knowledge about news events. Facebook also tended to show users information from sources they already agreed with, creating political “filter bubbles” that reinforced people’s worldviews, and was a vector for misinformation, primarily for politically conservative users.
But the biggest news came from what the studies didn’t find: despite Facebook’s influence on the spread of information, there was no evidence that the platform had a significant effect on people’s underlying beliefs, or on levels of political polarization.
These are just the latest findings to suggest that the relationship between the information we consume and the beliefs we hold is far more complex than is commonly understood.
‘Filter bubbles’ and democracy
Sometimes the dangerous effects of social media are clear. In 2018, when I went to Sri Lanka to report on anti-Muslim pogroms, I found that Facebook’s newsfeed had been a vector for the rumors that formed a pretext for vigilante violence, and that WhatsApp groups had become platforms for organizing and carrying out the actual attacks. In Brazil last January, supporters of former President Jair Bolsonaro used social media to spread false claims that fraud had cost him the election, and then turned to WhatsApp and Telegram groups to plan a mob attack on federal buildings in the capital, Brasília. It was a similar playbook to that used in the United States on Jan. 6, 2021, when supporters of Donald Trump stormed the Capitol.
But aside from discrete events like these, there have also been concerns that social media, and particularly the algorithms used to suggest content to users, might be contributing to the more general spread of misinformation and polarization.
The theory, roughly, goes something like this: unlike in the past, when most people got their information from the same few mainstream sources, social media now makes it possible for people to filter news around their own interests and biases. As a result, they mostly share and see stories from people on their own side of the political spectrum. That “filter bubble” of information supposedly exposes users to increasingly skewed versions of reality, undermining consensus and reducing their understanding of people on the opposing side.
The theory gained mainstream attention after Trump was elected in 2016. “The ‘Filter Bubble’ Explains Why Trump Won and You Didn’t See It Coming,” announced a New York Magazine article a few days after the election. “Your Echo Chamber is Destroying Democracy,” Wired Magazine claimed a few weeks later.
Changing information doesn’t change minds
But without rigorous testing, it’s been hard to figure out whether the filter bubble effect was real. The four new studies are the first in a series of 16 peer-reviewed papers that arose from a collaboration between Meta, the company that owns Facebook and Instagram, and a group of researchers from universities including Princeton, Dartmouth, the University of Pennsylvania, Stanford and others.
Meta gave unprecedented access to the researchers during the three-month period before the 2020 U.S. election, allowing them to analyze data from more than 200 million users and also conduct randomized controlled experiments on large groups of users who agreed to participate. It’s worth noting that the social media giant spent $20 million on work from NORC at the University of Chicago (previously the National Opinion Research Center), a nonpartisan research organization that helped collect some of the data. And while Meta did not pay the researchers itself, some of its employees worked with the academics, and a few of the authors had received funding from the company in the past. But the researchers took steps to protect the independence of their work, including pre-registering their research questions in advance, and Meta was only able to veto requests that would violate users’ privacy.
The studies, taken together, suggest that there is evidence for the first part of the “filter bubble” theory: Facebook users did tend to see posts from like-minded sources, and there were high degrees of “ideological segregation” with little overlap between what liberal and conservative users saw, clicked and shared. Most misinformation was concentrated in a conservative corner of the social network, making right-wing users far more likely to encounter political lies on the platform.
“I think it’s a matter of supply and demand,” said Sandra González-Bailón, the lead author on the paper that studied misinformation. Facebook users skew conservative, making the potential market for partisan misinformation larger on the right. And online curation, amplified by algorithms that prioritize the most emotive content, could reinforce those market effects, she added.
When it came to the second part of the theory — that this filtered content would shape people’s beliefs and worldviews, often in harmful ways — the papers found little support. One experiment deliberately reduced content from like-minded sources, so that users saw more varied information, but found no effect on polarization or political attitudes. Removing the algorithm’s influence on people’s feeds, so that they just saw content in chronological order, “did not significantly alter levels of issue polarization, affective polarization, political knowledge, or other key attitudes,” the researchers found. Nor did removing content shared by other users.
Algorithms have been in lawmakers’ cross hairs for years, but many of the arguments for regulating them have presumed that they have real-world influence. This research complicates that narrative.
But it also has implications that are far broader than social media itself, reaching some of the core assumptions around how we form our beliefs and political views. Brendan Nyhan, who researches political misperceptions and was a lead author of one of the studies, said the results were striking because they suggested an even looser link between information and beliefs than had been shown in previous research. “From the area that I do my research in, the finding that has emerged as the field has developed is that factual information often changes people’s factual views, but those changes don’t always translate into different attitudes,” he said. But the new studies suggested an even weaker relationship. “We’re seeing null effects on both factual views and attitudes.”
As a journalist, I confess a certain personal investment in the idea that presenting people with information will affect their beliefs and decisions. But if that is not true, then the potential effects would reach beyond my own profession. If new information does not change beliefs or political support, for instance, then that will affect not just voters’ view of the world, but their ability to hold democratic leaders to account.
Thank you for being a subscriber
Read past editions of the newsletter here.
If you’re enjoying what you’re reading, please consider recommending it to others. They can sign up here. Browse all of our subscriber-only newsletters here.
I’d love your feedback on this newsletter. Please email thoughts and suggestions to interpreter@nytimes.com. You can also follow me on Twitter.
usatoday.com cannot provide a good user experience to your browser. To use this site and continue to benefit from our journalism and site features, please upgrade to the latest version of Chrome, Edge, Firefox or Safari.
- Chrome: https://www.google.com/chrome/
- Edge: https://www.microsoft.com/edge/
- Firefox: https://www.firefox.com/
- Safari: Update to latest version through the App Store
