Conclusion: Group evaluation of Vox.com
The coverage of Vox concerns a wide variety of articles. All articles which were analyzed covered a completely different topic as it ranged from vegans, to homicides. This is in line with what Vox aims for; “(…) Vox candidly shepherds audiences through politics and policy, business and pop culture, food, science and everything else that matters.” (Vox, 2018). It is clear that they really aim to make news understandable and doing this, they want to be as transparent and truthful as possible.
The Vox authors often refer to their sources right away, which was considered a positive aspect. This not only provides openness on their acquisition of information but is also practical to obtain additional information. Yet, these sources were not always primary sources, but secondary or even tertiary, and in various cases the validity of these referred articles was questionable, and have room for improvement. Obviously, this only applies to the articles which were analyzed and thus no generalizations can be made. However, it gave a feeling of limited investigative journalism. It is of course unknown whether the authors themselves checked with the primary sources even though they did not refer to them, but they certainly should aim for objective and accurate reporting.
Articles were extensive and therefore quite long. This was done to make sure Vox thoroughly covered the topic and provided additional details for readers. All this contributed to the understanding of the article by readers. This matches the goal of Vox; “By making complex topics easier to understand (…)” (Vox, 2018).
Of note is the fact that in several of the analyzed articles, the author seemed to use an agenda-setting style of writing. The authors did not always seem to provide all possible angles on the topics discussed. This might have resulted in biased views, due to framing.
While checking the articles, some minor errors were found. Most of those appeared to be a case of (unintentional) misinformation, rather than disinformation. In other cases, numbers were rounded up or left out, a reason for this could be to make the story more fluent. These errors did not appear to have a significant effect on the overall point of the story, nor did they seem to affect the reader’s interpretation. Thus, the overall result points to the articles being quite trustworthy.
Contrary to the written articles which largely showed to be valid, different results were found for the video that was checked. Although the general scope of the video was valid, specifics showed to be far off sometimes. Therefore, the viewer was slightly lured into the agenda of the videomakers. This is therefore a cause for concern. Even though this analysis was limited to a single video it would be interesting to investigate whether this only holds for this single case.
To conclude, Vox is generally a reliable news source to obtain information about different topics as articles are well composed. Yet, facts and figures, as well as statements should always be interpreted with caution by the reader.