Annotated by; Madison Brock
As the research for this mysterious creature continued, I stumbled across an article on cryptozoologynews.com. I was intrigued by the URL as I flew to a quick conclusion that this article would be a credible source. But as I analyzed it, I did a complete 180-degree turn. Although this website is based on the news of cryptozoology, the study of unknown animals, and could be deemed as credible source due to being a place strictly for that, this article is not credible due to the lack of reliable information and its short length.
As the research for this mysterious creature continued, I stumbled across an article on cryptozoologynews.com. I was intrigued by the URL as I flew to a quick conclusion that this article would be a credible source. But as I analyzed it, I did a complete 180-degree turn. Although this website is based on the news of cryptozoology, the study of unknown animals, and could be deemed as credible source due to being a place strictly for that, this article is not credible due to the lack of reliable information and its short length.
This article could be argued to be credible due to the website’s overall content and purpose as well as its layout. The overall purpose of the website is to discuss all sorts of creatures that could be considered in the cryptozoology category such as UFOs, pterodactyls, bigfoot and more. Mothman can most definitely be associated with unknown things such as those. The layout of the website had tabs at the top which gives the audience the option to contact the website or even report a sighting yourself. On the right side of the website, their social media handles for Twitter and their FaceBook page is provided which is a nice touch for the reader to further see what their website is about, helping the site’s credibility as it isn’t just a fanbased website.
This article could also be deemed not credible because it has a lack of reliable information. The article was extremely vauge and didn’t give much content to the audience about mothman. The 16-year-old minor was the eyewitness and age could be a problem due to still being in a child-like state of mind. The winner here to the article not being credible is the fact that the report stated that there were no evidence or pictures. If there weren’t any evidence, how can one be certain it really happened, and it wasn’t all made up? That can make the audience question the credibility of the article in an instance.
Also, the article provided a quick recap to what claimed to be a mothman sighting back in 2010. A 16-year-old minor from Tennessee was visiting his friend in, you guessed it: Point Pleasant, West Virginia, known for the reported mothman sighting back in the 60s. The minor claimed, “We both saw a black figure outside the house, standing in the road. I thought it was a giant owl of some sort.” He continues by describing the creature: 7 feet tall, black, owl-like face with red glowing eyes. As the article was straight to the point, the vague content given can make the source not be credible as it barely gives details about the situation. This article only included 10 sentences about this reported sighting, a short simple-and-sweet article that’s easy on the eyes but too easy to be credible.
In conclusion, the article could be deemed credible or not credible, but from my analysis I have drawn the conclusion it is not credible based on the lack of reliable evidence provided and how short the article actually is.
Work Cited
“New ‘Mothman’ Sighting in Point Pleasant.” http://cryptozoologynews.com/new-mothman-sighting-point-pleasant/. 28 Oct 2018
Picture Found at; https://www.redbubble.com/people/emstylauzer/works/28994165-mothman-chibi
Picture Found at; https://www.redbubble.com/people/emstylauzer/works/28994165-mothman-chibi
Comments
Post a Comment