I evaluated this author as a person who has not witnessed ISIS from a first hand account but rather from reading second hand accounts that are paired with their own opinions. I analyzed the article and took most of the information as face value but the opinions were easy to distinguish from the “facts” in the article. One of the ways to do research on where the author stands is to consider his view and how he could be affected by the issue at hand. For my article I took the stance that he thought that Islam was the main issue at hand not that there were certain groups who were interpreting it an a way that was detrimental to not only western civilization but to the Islamic world as a whole.
By looking at similar issues on an actual news source they attempt to use statistics and facts to back up the side that they take. One of the main issues that was disturbing was the use of skewed data to support a certain stance of the issue. They are more authoritative because they typically have an editing system in place which doesn’t allow for absurd bias statements that aren’t backed up with facts compared to a blog where anyone can post their thoughts without any oversight. I think that traditional news sources are better for research because of the editing process but to use tweets, blogs or videos you can try to determine what random individuals around the United States.