{"id":73,"date":"2018-01-22T20:01:05","date_gmt":"2018-01-22T20:01:05","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/courses.lumenlearning.com\/suny-webliteracy\/chapter\/filtering-by-time-and-place-to-find-the-original\/"},"modified":"2018-01-22T20:01:05","modified_gmt":"2018-01-22T20:01:05","slug":"filtering-by-time-and-place-to-find-the-original","status":"publish","type":"chapter","link":"https:\/\/courses.lumenlearning.com\/suny-webliteracy\/chapter\/filtering-by-time-and-place-to-find-the-original\/","title":{"raw":"Filtering by Time and Place to Find the Original","rendered":"Filtering by Time and Place to Find the Original"},"content":{"raw":"

As we\u2019ve mentioned above, going upstream often is a journey through time and space. The original story is also\u00a0the first<\/em> story, and as we saw with the Hawaiian news show, local sources often have special insights into stories.\n\nThere are specific tactics we can use with Google other search engines to help us find original material more quickly.\n\nThe following photo is another photo that Twitter users have identified as another \u201cNational Geographic photographer\u201d photo. Is it?\n\n\"\"\n\nA Google Reverse Image Search finds the photo, suggesting the best search term is \u201cbirds attacking people.\u201d\n\n\"\"\n\nThis suggestion is based on the fact that the pages where this photo shows up often contain these words (\u201cbirds attacking people\u201d).\n\n\"\"\n\nWe can modify that search, however. Let\u2019s return only the older pictures.\n\nWe do that by clicking the \u201cTools\u201d button and then using the \u201cTime\u201d dropdown to select \u201cCustom range\u201d. This should filter out some of the posts that merely include this in slideshows.\n\n\"\"\n\nWe pick a date in the past to see if we can filter out the newer photos. While we\u2019re at it we remove the \u201cBirds attacking people\u201d search and replace it with \u201cbird\u201d, since the other phrase sounds like a title for a slideshow with many of these sorts of photos in it. The original isn\u2019t likely to be on a page like that; the slideshows come later in the viral cycle:\n\n\"\"\n\nWhy 2009? We have to pick something. For viral photos I usually find 2009 or 2010 a good starting point. If you don\u2019t find any results with that parameter, then you go higher, to a year like 2012. If you find too many results, then change the search to something like 2007.\n\nHere we get a much better set of results. Instead of a list of \u201cWhen Birds Attack\u201d slideshows, we get a set of results talking about this specific<\/em>\u00a0photo. One of the results stands out to me.\n\n\"\"\n\nThis third result looks most promising for two reasons:\n<\/p>

  1. The poster of the \u201cGot to close to the hawk\u201d result seems to know a bit more about the situation, noting \u201cthese birds are trained\u201d.<\/li>\n \t
  2. It mentions \u201cKazakhstan Eagle\u201d. That\u2019s a name of a type of bird, but it\u2019s also a place, and if we could confirm this took place in Kazakhstan, there will be other ways to trace this back to the original. Remember -- going upstream is about getting closer in time to the original, but also can mean getting closer in space.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\nLuckily when we go to that page it links us in the comments to a page that has the set of shots that the photographer was taking, as well as a shot of this cameraman being attacked from another angle.\n\n\"\"\n\nIt\u2019s a series of photos from a hunting competition in Chengelsy Gorge, Kazakhstan. The eagle attacking him is tame and trained, but for some reason attacked him anyway. So this is real; it\u2019s not photoshopped or staged. At the same time it\u2019s not a National Geographic photographer. We could pursue it further if we wanted, but we\u2019ll stop here.\n\nWhile this process takes some time to explain, in practice it can be done in about 90 seconds. Here\u2019s a YouTube video that shows what this looks like in practice.\n\nhttps:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=XRqiuFt-paQ\n\n(Note that as long as you are careful with confirmation bias, you can replace search term \"bird\" with a term\u00a0like \"fake\" to find pages claiming the image is fake and see what evidence they present.)\n\nGoing local is also useful for other sorts of events. Here is text from a story that ran in many right-wing blogs, under headlines such as \u201cTeen Girls Savagely Beaten By Black Lives Matter Thugs\u201d:\n
    \n
    \n\nTwo white teenage girls and their mother were attacked during the protests in Stockton last Friday. The young girls were transported to the hospital by police after being viciously beaten by Black Lives Matter supporters, but one of the attackers will soon face criminal charges for his role in the assault.\n\nThe two teenage girls said they were viciously attacked by more than a dozen male and female protesters as they were leaving a restaurant. As they were leaving the restaurant, they were approached by a group of protesters chanting \u201cBlack Lives Matter.\u201d<\/em>\n\n<\/div><\/blockquote>\nThe headlines and the language used in those posts were often inflammatory and racist, but is there a really story under this? Or is the story fake?\n\nThere\u2019s many ways we can go about this, but for a local event like this you would expect some local coverage. So to go upstream here, one option is to go local. In this case we look to see what news organizations cover the area, by typing in 'stockton ca local affiliate':\n\n\"\"\n\nThen we go to one of those sites, and look for the news, typing in 'teenage girls black lives matter':\n\n\"\"\n\nAnd in doing that we find that the event did happen<\/a>. But the facts, if you follow that link, are more complex than most of the tertiary coverage will convey.\n\nThere\u2019s plenty to argue about concerning the event. But by going to the local source we can start with a cleaner version of the facts. This isn\u2019t to say that local news is always reliable, but in a sea of spin and fakery, it\u2019s not a bad place to start for coverage and confirmation of local events.","rendered":"

    As we\u2019ve mentioned above, going upstream often is a journey through time and space. The original story is also\u00a0the first<\/em> story, and as we saw with the Hawaiian news show, local sources often have special insights into stories.<\/p>\n

    There are specific tactics we can use with Google other search engines to help us find original material more quickly.<\/p>\n

    The following photo is another photo that Twitter users have identified as another \u201cNational Geographic photographer\u201d photo. Is it?<\/p>\n

    \"\"<\/p>\n

    A Google Reverse Image Search finds the photo, suggesting the best search term is \u201cbirds attacking people.\u201d<\/p>\n

    \"\"<\/p>\n

    This suggestion is based on the fact that the pages where this photo shows up often contain these words (\u201cbirds attacking people\u201d).<\/p>\n

    \"\"<\/p>\n

    We can modify that search, however. Let\u2019s return only the older pictures.<\/p>\n

    We do that by clicking the \u201cTools\u201d button and then using the \u201cTime\u201d dropdown to select \u201cCustom range\u201d. This should filter out some of the posts that merely include this in slideshows.<\/p>\n

    \"\"<\/p>\n

    We pick a date in the past to see if we can filter out the newer photos. While we\u2019re at it we remove the \u201cBirds attacking people\u201d search and replace it with \u201cbird\u201d, since the other phrase sounds like a title for a slideshow with many of these sorts of photos in it. The original isn\u2019t likely to be on a page like that; the slideshows come later in the viral cycle:<\/p>\n

    \"\"<\/p>\n

    Why 2009? We have to pick something. For viral photos I usually find 2009 or 2010 a good starting point. If you don\u2019t find any results with that parameter, then you go higher, to a year like 2012. If you find too many results, then change the search to something like 2007.<\/p>\n

    Here we get a much better set of results. Instead of a list of \u201cWhen Birds Attack\u201d slideshows, we get a set of results talking about this specific<\/em>\u00a0photo. One of the results stands out to me.<\/p>\n

    \"\"<\/p>\n

    This third result looks most promising for two reasons:\n<\/p>\n

      \n
    1. The poster of the \u201cGot to close to the hawk\u201d result seems to know a bit more about the situation, noting \u201cthese birds are trained\u201d.<\/li>\n
    2. It mentions \u201cKazakhstan Eagle\u201d. That\u2019s a name of a type of bird, but it\u2019s also a place, and if we could confirm this took place in Kazakhstan, there will be other ways to trace this back to the original. Remember — going upstream is about getting closer in time to the original, but also can mean getting closer in space.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

      Luckily when we go to that page it links us in the comments to a page that has the set of shots that the photographer was taking, as well as a shot of this cameraman being attacked from another angle.<\/p>\n

      \"\"<\/p>\n

      It\u2019s a series of photos from a hunting competition in Chengelsy Gorge, Kazakhstan. The eagle attacking him is tame and trained, but for some reason attacked him anyway. So this is real; it\u2019s not photoshopped or staged. At the same time it\u2019s not a National Geographic photographer. We could pursue it further if we wanted, but we\u2019ll stop here.<\/p>\n

      While this process takes some time to explain, in practice it can be done in about 90 seconds. Here\u2019s a YouTube video that shows what this looks like in practice.<\/p>\n