IS.4.MdC.

Determine credibility of sources based upon their origin,

authority, and context. (think sourcing, context and corroboration!)

Which account is more believable? Why?

The New York Journal

or The New York Times

Compare the evidence used by both papers to support their claims that the Maine was
blown up by attack or by unknown causes. Which uses stronger evidence? Use at least
three specific examples/phrases/words from the articles to support your position.
I believe that article B is more reliable because it included more relevant information than article
A. According to article B, Captain Shuly found that fire would be generated in the coal bunkers
and the heat had blistered the steel petition before the bunkers and magazine were flooded.
This article did not have a bias unlike article A, where they have a bias that their enemy Spain
did it. Article A, stated DESTRUCTION OF THE WAR SHIP MAINE WAS THE WORK OF AN
ENEMY in the beginning, and had a bias, but article B stated MAINES HULL WILL DECIDE
in the top and didnt conclude right in the beginning. In addition, in article B, they included a
quote from Secretary Long. The text talks about how they interviewed him after the Maine sank,
and it states that he said I do not. In that I am influenced by the fact that Capt. Sigsbee has not
yet reported to the Navy Department on the cause. He is evidently waiting to write a full report.
So long as he does not express himself, I certainly cannot. I should think from the indications,
however, that there was an accident that the magazine exploded. How that came about I do not
know. For the present, at least, no other warship will be sent to Havana This article did not
jump right to the conclusion, but had reliable evidence to back it up. Also, From these quotes,
one can see that article B is reliable, since they do not have a bias, did not jump right into the
conclusion, and also included relevant evidence from an interview.