The CRAAP Test for Media Literacy

Media Literacy and the CRAAP Test Media literacy is one of the most pressing needs in the current anti-intellectual, "alternative facts" American universe. The proliferation of fake news is in part due to lack of media literacy, and the inability to discern credible sources of information from untrustworthy ones. One of the tools that can be used to assess the quality of a media outlet or article is the aptly named CRAAP test.

The CRAAP test evaluates a source according to five criteria: currency, reliability, author authority, organizational authority, and purpose or point of view. Three websites that can be reviewed using the CRAAP test include the Vaccine Resistance Movement (http://vaccineresistancemovement.org/?page_id=9788), Pro-Con.org (http://www.procon.org/).

The CRAAP test clearly reveals that the Vaccine Resistance Movement is indeed a crap website, whereas the websites of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the Pro-Con.org website offer current, reliable, authoritative, and unbiased information in spite of the potential for the ACLU to be perceived of as being biased. The Vaccine Resistance Movement echoes the sentiments of the anti-vaccination movement, which spreads propaganda about the harmful effects of vaccines and minimizes the harmful effects of infectious diseases.

There is an "About Us" section of the poorly designed website, which is authored by an individual named Joel Lord who does not offer any credentials. The author uses hyperbolic and inflammatory language. Most of the posts on the Website do not have a date and time stamp, leaving its currency unclear. Because it is overtly biased, personal, and filled with propaganda, the website is crap.

Also because the author has no credentials and the organization is not reputable, there is no authority in the material presented on the Vaccine Resistance Movement website. No information can be corroborated by peer-reviewed journals but only by other anti-vaccination websites. Therefore, the Vaccine Resistance Movement receives a CRAAP test score of 2, only because the author actually offers a name, even if it might be a fake name. The American Civil Liberties Union is one of the oldest non-governmental civil liberties organizations in the United States.

The organization uses the power of the legal and justice system to ensure that no private or public sector individual or organization tramples on the Constitutional rights of American citizens. The ACLU traces its history to World War I and the first of many anti-Communist "red scares" that gripped America in the middle of the 20th century, and their first major case was the landmark Scopes Trial in 1925, followed by its leading role in protesting the Japanese internment camps during World War Two.

The ACLU stands for absolute freedoms of speech, and therefore does not necessarily take a stand except on that core issue. In other words, the ACLU is not affiliated with any political party and cannot be considered biased in a traditional way. Using the CRAAP test, the bias score is actually a 3 because the ACLU offers links to actual court cases.

Although the ACLU has a large degree of authority because of its historical credibility, the CRAAP test would weigh the authority of the organization as a 2 because it is not actually affiliated with the government or a university. All information is current and up to date, leading to a currency score of 3. Therefore, the overall CRAAP test score for the ACLU is 11. Pro-Con.org is a non-profit organization that, according to its website, "provides professionally-researched pro, con, and related information on more than 50 controversial issues," ("About Us").

The authority and credibility of the information on the Pro-Con.org website seems surprisingly strong, as according to their "About Us" page, "34 US state governments, 17 US state departments of education, 23 foreign governments, and 22 US federal agencies have cited ProCon.org materials." However, the CRAAP test requires media literate viewers not to believe what they read on the About page but to conduct a more in-depth analysis. Such an analysis reveals that indeed, the authors of Pro-Con.org articles cite all sources used.

The purpose or point of view is precisely to provide balanced coverage of an issue and to help facilitate critical thought. If Pro-Con.org could receive higher than a 3 on the P. rating, it would. However, it is not a primary source or a scholarly one, and so it's a score is only a 2. Pro-Con.org receives a 3 for both currency and reliability because of the content of their information.

Of these three, websites, the most relevant to a Human Services professional seeking accurate, reliable policy related information would be Pro-Con.org. However, it.