S.M.E.L.L.–although it sounds a little childish–is really important in the world of journalism and media. It stands for Source, Motivation, Evidence, Logic, and Left Out which are things to look for when evaluating information, especially in the news. The test can be done super thoroughly if you really want to dig through a source or it can be quick mental note before reading an article. This test helps clarify biases and how information can be skewed or manipulated.
Here is an article from The Atlantic titled The Great Transition about innovation and progress in addressing climate change: https://www.theatlantic.com/sponsored/2015-shell/the-great-transition/595/.
If I use the S.M.E.L.L. Test on this article I begin with looking at the source. Obviously, the Atlantic is an extremely popular news publication that has a long history of publishing writers like Mark Twain, Ernest Hemingway, and Martin Luther King Jr., to name a few. Out of curiosity I found an article on its history and the magazine has existed for around 160 years (https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1994/11/the-atlantic-a-history/308366/). However, reputation cannot be the only checkpoint for source. When breaking down a source it is good to use another acronym–PIE–which focuses on the proximity, independence, and expertise of the author/publisher. This article is sponsored by Shell Oil and a small disclaimer in the top corner explains that “it does not necessarily reflect the views of The Atlantic’s editorial staff.” In regards to proximity Shell Oil is extremely close to environmental conversations. All big Oil companies are known enemies to the fight against climate change as innovations in solar and wind energy will eventually put them out of business. The independence is obviously gone in it being a sponsored article and the author is not named so expertise is hard to dig in to. Even though the Atlantic published this article, it does not have the normal credibility of the Atlantic which is easily uncovered in the first part of the S.M.E.L.L. test.
The next element is motivation. If an article is sponsored there is a guaranteed motivation behind whoever pays for it. Shell Oil does not want solar or wind energy to expand because it will damage their company. On their own website the explain that “Government policy should provide incentives for investment, balancing environmental objectives and economic growth, encouraging a range of solutions that include oil, gas and renewables” which clearly explains that they have no desire or intention of eliminating fossil fuels.
For evidence it is good to look at where an article is getting its information. In this piece 4 out of 5 of the citations are to other news articles from various sources. The last reference is a real scientific report which is recognized as reputable. The evidence in this article is not what damages its truth but how it is used.
The logic throughout this piece is solid without any glaring holes. It is clearly written and makes sense, and just like with evidence this is not where this article looses its credibility.
In regards to what is left out of this piece is mention of the elimination of fossil fuels. While the article does a great job of highlighting innovations in solar and wind power it never once says anything about progress on cutting back carbon emissions by lowering fossil fuel use. Of course, Shell Oil would never advocate for this in a piece they sponsored but in the greater conversation about climate change I know cutting coal and oil is of great importance along with progress in technology.
After completing the S.M.E.L.L. test there is one more question that is good to ask–especially if the article didn’t fully pass the test as in this case. Its good to ask how might different people interpret this message differently? In this case people may read this in an overly-optimistic way. I could see someone taking from this article the idea that the environment is going to take care of itself and we don’t need to worry about it anymore. Obviously this is not the case and regardless of how far technology progresses people being eco-concsious is something that will always be necessary.
Words From Will 