The Arizona Daily Star has established itself as a trusted news source for the Tucson community. Renowned for its thorough reporting and commitment to journalistic integrity, it has cultivated a loyal readership by consistently providing accurate and relevant stories that reflect the interests and concerns of the local population. However, some individuals have raised concerns about the publication’s reliance on anonymous sources in certain investigative pieces, leading to debates about transparency and accountability in its reporting.
At Biasly, we strive to evaluate the reliability and accuracy of all media outlets. Let us investigate the reliability and accuracy of the Arizona Daily Star.
Does Reliability Matter?
Reliability, in general, refers to how trustworthy or accurate information, or in this case, a news source is. If we consider this definition, it quickly becomes clear why reliability is important in media sources. If we can’t trust the things we read then there isn’t much of a point in continuing to consume content from that source, after all. So how exactly can we gauge the reliability of a news source anyways?
There are several potential measures of reliability to look out for when trying to determine whether a media source is reliable or not. Red flags for an unreliable article can include the presence of wild unsubstantiated claims, facts dependent on other unreliable sources, heavy use of opinionated language, and more. Some indicators of a reliable news source, on the other hand, include things like:
- Absence of subjective/opinionated language in articles
- Credible sources cited (e.g., neutral sources, .gov, .edu websites)
- Facts and statistics backed by multiple relevant outside sources
- Use of primary sources when possible (e.g., interviews, quotes)
- Information that remains consistent across news sources
How Does Arizona Daily Star Fare in its Reliability?
The political reliability index developed by Biasly objectively assessed news organizations’ accuracy and trustworthiness. Arizona Daily Star’s overall Reliability Score has been rated as ‘Fair’ by Biasly. This rating is a weighted average of two distinct scores: the Fact Analysis Score and the Source Analysis Score, each evaluating separate components of Arizona Daily Star’s Reliability.
When computing the Average Reliability of the article, the Fact Analysis score is more heavily weighted. These ratings are as follows in the next two paragraphs:
Arizona Daily Star’s Source Analysis Score is ‘Fair,’ which suggests readers can trust some of the sources, links, and quotes provided by the news source. This score, which is based on A.I., focuses on assessing the quality of sources and quotes used, including their number, lengths, uniqueness, and diversity.
However, since these scores are based on percentages and averages, individual articles could be more or less trustworthy depending on the context, author, and other factors. Our findings show that the Arizona Daily Star’s reliability is mostly but not all factual because it has retracted several stories in the past and published articles with unverified sources.
Let’s analyze the supporting data for the Arizona Daily Star’s bias and reliability rankings and discuss what to look for when searching for trustworthy news sources.
Arizona Daily Star’s Accuracy and Reliability
The Arizona Daily Star is recognized for its centralized reporting, but it has a controversial history that includes using anonymous sources. At Biasly, we will evaluate the credibility of news stories from The Arizona Daily Star by assessing the quality of the sources, the accuracy of the reporting, and any potential bias present in the articles.
Selection bias is when stories and facts are selected or deselected, often on ideological grounds, to create a narrative supporting the new sources’ ideology. Omission bias, on the other hand, is when different opinions and political views regarding a situation are left out so that the reader is only exposed to the ideological perspective supported by the author. It’s essential to keep in mind these two types of biases when trying to assess an article’s level of accuracy.
Biasly assigns a percentage score to accuracy, with one being the least accurate and 100 being the most. Ratings are calculated by weighing assertions with supporting evidence, the number of reliable internal sources, and the number of reliable external sources employed. A full page at Biasly’s website includes dependability and accuracy ratings for newly released Arizona Daily Start news stories. According to the reports that analytics have assessed, the Arizona Daily Star has a ‘Fair’ reliability score. This score can vary from article to article, though, and the most extreme variations in dependability are caused by bias, notably omission, and selection bias.
We will examine more examples to investigate the reliability of articles from the Arizona Daily Star. This analysis will focus on selection bias, omission bias, and the quality of the sources and facts presented.
izona Daily Star Online Pieces
The Arizona Daily Star’s online articles are known for their quality journalism, engaging stories, and thorough coverage of local and regional news.
Like many other news outlets, the Arizona Daily Star features an Opinion section that highlights a variety of viewpoints from columnists, readers, and guest contributors. By presenting diverse perspectives, the Opinion section encourages readers to broaden their understanding of complex issues and consider viewpoints they may not encounter otherwise. This approach fosters critical thinking and prompts readers to engage more deeply with the topics discussed. However, while the Opinion section provides a range of viewpoints, it may also influence readers’ perceptions by emphasizing certain biases. As a result, readers can be swayed by the opinions presented, potentially impacting their views on current events. Therefore, it is essential for readers to critically evaluate these pieces and consider multiple perspectives to develop a well-rounded understanding.
Quality of Sources and Facts Used
The Arizona Daily Star has been criticized for using anonymous sources in some investigative articles, raising concerns about transparency and accountability in its reporting. Relying on anonymous sources can weaken a news organization’s credibility, as it may cause readers to doubt the validity of the information provided. This practice can also make it challenging for the public to evaluate the motivations and biases of those sources, which may lead to the spread of misinformation.
For example, “Tim Steller’s column: Bright blue Tucson area must show viable alternative to Trumpism” by Tim Steller. The article received an “Excellent” rating for using Mulitple Sources. Steller included 14 quotes of varying lengths: seven are short, two are medium, and five are long. In terms of multiple sources, the article lists five references:
- Arizona Election Results
- Arizona State Legislature
- The Guardian (Somewhat Liberal)
- Arizona Daily Star (Center)
- NBC News (Somewhat Liberal)
Steller’s range from local to national outlets, each possessing potential biases. The Arizona Daily Star is considered to have a centrist stance, which may aim to present balanced perspectives. At the same time, The Guardian and NBC News being used as sources in this article are known for their somewhat liberal viewpoints, which could potentially influence the coverage to favor more progressive narratives. By including these diverse sources, the article attempts to offer a broad view, but readers should remain mindful of the potential influence of these liberal viewpoints on the information presented.
Another example is “Arizona lawmakers remain divided on Ukraine support” by Ian McKinney. The article received an “Excellent” Rating for using Multiple Sources. McKinney included 15 quotes of varying lengths: five are short, three are medium, and seven are long. In terms of multiple sources, the article lists eight references:
- Council on Foreign Relations
- US Senate Committee on Appropriations
- S. Department of Defense
- Congressman Paul Gosar
- Republicans for Ukraine
- United States Senate
- Cronkite News (Center)
McKinney’s sources lean heavily towards official government and institutional channels, which may introduce a pro-establishment bias. Additionally, the prominence of Republican perspectives, such as those from Congressman Paul Gosar and Republicans for Ukraine, could skew the narrative toward one political viewpoint. Using numerous official and institutional sources enhances the author’s credibility by providing authoritative information and supporting the claims made in the article. However, the reliance on predominantly pro-establishment and Republican perspectives might limit readership diversity, as it could alienate audiences seeking a more balanced or alternative viewpoint.
The choice of sources in an article can greatly influence how readers perceive the information presented. When an article primarily features pro-establishment and Republican viewpoints, readers may see the coverage as biased or one-sided, which could lead to a loss of trust in the information. On the other hand, including a variety of perspectives and sources can engage a wider audience, promote a more nuanced understanding, and encourage critical thinking among readers.
Selection and Omission Bias
The Arizona Daily Star is generally regarded as a centrist publication that does not endorse any specific political ideology or attempt to sway its audience with a particular agenda. However, its Opinion Section encourages writers to express their viewpoints. In contrast, biased articles present information in a way that heavily favors one side or agenda, which can mislead readers and shape their opinions without providing a balanced perspective.
Let us examine the opinion article “Local opinion: Let’s embrace shorter presidential elections” which is rated as center. The article explores the potential advantages of a shorter, more streamlined presidential election schedule in the United States. It examines how reducing the length of the electoral season could affect costs, promote bipartisan compromise, enhance national policy-making, and address the divisions among the American people.
The article cites data from OpenSecrets.org about the cost of the 2020 presidential election and includes the viewpoint of Republican Senator James Lankford, as reported by The New York Times.
“OpenSecrets.org estimates that the 2020 presidential election cost $5.7 billion (plus another $8.7 billion for congressional races spread out over a similarly protracted electoral schedule).”
“Republican Senator James Lankford, a chief architect of the landmark bipartisan immigration reform bill that failed in Congress this February, recently told The New York Times that he believes the bill could have passed as late as last December but that by 2024 it had become a victim of the electoral cycle”
“Perhaps most harmful of all, though, is the discord and division that long political seasons sow among the American people ourselves. Political divisions run deep in the United States but potentially bridgeable gaps expand into dangerous chasms during long stretches of active partisan campaigning.”
The article primarily discusses the benefits of shorter election cycles, particularly a compressed presidential election schedule. It highlights advantages such as cost savings, reduced political hostility, and the potential for bipartisan compromise. However, the article fails to address possible downsides or counterarguments to this proposal. For example, it overlooks the impact on lesser-known and third-party candidates and the potential for meaningful intraparty competition.
By omitting these considerations, the author may lead readers to view the idea of shorter election cycles as entirely positive without acknowledging the complexities involved. This oversight could result in a skewed understanding, preventing readers from fully grasping the potential challenges or drawbacks and ultimately limiting their knowledge of the broader implications for the democratic process.
Let us examine another opinion article, “Editorial: We need to control our borders — the right way, ” rated moderately liberal. The article discusses Arizona’s controversial and expensive effort to construct a border wall using rusty shipping containers. This initiative led to legal challenges and significant financial losses.
The article includes statements from former Governor Doug Ducey, his former chief of staff, Daniel Scarpinato, and Ducey’s successor, Katie Hobbs.
“A political stunt and a waste of money,” says Ducey’s successor, Katie Hobbs.
“This effort was never meant to be a permanent solution,” said Daniel Scarpinato, Ducey’s former chief of staff. “But it did result in getting the (Biden) Administration’s attention.”
“Did the nearly $200 million spent by the state on this harebrained scheme keep even one undocumented person from crossing the border? We sincerely doubt it.”
“Like the stunts other states have pulled, shipping undocumented immigrants to Democratic strongholds, Ducey’s wall was a money-wasting grandstand play.”
The article primarily critiques the actions of former Governor Ducey and his team, highlighting the financial waste and ineffectiveness of the border wall project. However, it overlooks the perspectives and actions of other stakeholders involved in border control, such as federal officials and local communities. Additionally, it lacks information about the effectiveness of alternative border control measures and potential solutions. By focusing mainly on the criticisms of the former governor, the article risks reinforcing the biases of its readers, particularly those already skeptical of the border wall initiative. This narrow focus limits the audience’s understanding of the broader context surrounding border control issues, as it disregards the viewpoints of federal officials, local communities, and other possible solutions. As a result, readers may develop a skewed perception of the situation, viewing it through a predominantly critical lens and overlooking the complex nature of border security challenges.
Both articles emphasize how biased perspectives can influence public opinion by showcasing limited viewpoints. When media outlets primarily focus on criticism without providing a balanced perspective, they can lead readers to adopt a similarly narrow view. This fosters polarized public discourse, where individuals become less informed about the issue’s complexities and are more likely to form opinions based on incomplete information.
So, Is the Arizona Daily Star Reliable?
The Arizona Daily Star news outlet aims to provide balanced reporting, delivering news from a centrist perspective. This makes it a relatively reliable source for those seeking diverse viewpoints. To gain a comprehensive understanding of current events, it is essential for media consumers to critically evaluate the sources they rely on and remain open to various perspectives. This approach enables individuals to navigate the complexities of the modern media landscape and form well-informed opinions. To assist with this, you can use Biasly’s News Bias and Reliability Checker to assess the reliability and credibility of your news sources.