This document discusses evaluating sources on controversial issues and dealing with bias. It examines four different websites about the Bhopal gas tragedy in India. Website 1 is run by Union Carbide and would have a bias towards protecting the company. Website 2 is run by a group seeking justice for the victims and would show the human impact. Website 3 is run by a medical clinic still helping victims, showing the ongoing effects. Website 4 provides factual details but no emotional context. To get a full perspective, the document concludes one should consider information from all the sites while remaining aware of each source's potential biases.

1. Dealing with Bias in a Controversial Issue Controversial issues require a different kind of research– beyond JSTOR, Gale etc. Information about an environmental crisis will come from many sources, each having its own perspective or bias. It’s up to you to evaluate websites and make decisions about what you can trust.

2. What happens when you type in www.bhopal.com? You get to Union Carbide’s website. What bias would you expect?

3. What happens when you type in bhopal.net? What is different? Read the fine print at the top – “Authoritative article on the depraved indifference to human life of Union Carbide in Bhopal” What bias is here? How do you know? If you go to this website, you will see a slideshow of photos the follow this screenshot without you clicking on anything –visuals that are tragic, symbolic, inflammatory and emotional. What does this website do? Who owns this website (International Campaign for Justice in Bhopal) What purposes does this website have?

4. What happens when you type in bhopal.org? How does this site differ from the other two? What is its purpose? Is it credible? How do you know? Does it have a bias? How do you know? This site has a medical clinic at Bhopal where they still are caring for the residents. What can you learn from this site? What do you need to be careful of?

5. What about this site? Very Text dense, no visuals. This site is probably designed for people who want the facts. It has nothing other than small serif type text. But are the fact legitimate? To find out, truncate (cut off) the url back to the /ted/ to see if you can find the source of this website. (This is a good technique to use on any website). When you do this, you get the next slide.

6. This new page shows us that this site is designed to blend new technologies and information about critical issues of our times. The organizations which created this site are clearly listed. As you can see if you read the fine print, the TED database is full of case studies.

7. This is a screen shot of the website about halfway down. As you can see, there is an author listed (Trupti Patel) nd the case study is designed to cover many many aspects of the crisis. For factual information, details etc. presented in a non-emotional setting, this website is excellent. But for a paper on a crisis, you will also want to know how people responded during the crisis, and how they are responding now. So, you can make use of all websites AS LONG AS you understand their bias.

8. So, which ones to use? All of them! What can you learn from the website #1? Union Carbide’s (the owner of the factory that caused the disaster) perspective Bias? Making the company look compassionate, efficient and not culpable (guilty) What can you learn from website #2? It comes from an international organization devoted to getting justice for Bhopal victims – even 26 years later. This shows dedication, and possibly confirms that there are still problems there because the organization still exists, puts out newsletters, holds deomnstrations etc. What can you learn from website #3? This website is from an organization still doing medical work at a clinic in Bhopal. It needs ongoing funding, and to do this it will appeal to your sense of outrage and need. You can learn about what medical issues still exist in Bhopal. It can help confirm Website #2’s perspective that the tragedy is not over. What can you learn from website #4? This website has all the hard data you could ask for. What happened, what went wrong, what were the consequences, etc. It will not give you a feeling for the emotional horror of the event. ALL OF THESE SITES TOGETHER CAN GIVE YOU A FULLER PERSPECTIVE ON THE ISSUE EVEN THOUGH EACH ONE HAS SOME SORT OF BIAS. JUST BE AWARE OF THE BIAS AND KNOW WHAT YOU CAN AND CANNOT TRUST FROM A GIVEN SITE.