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.

I had always heard about “technology logs.” Many people in my family had given it a try and insisted that it was both an interesting and eye-opening experience. Three weeks in to the spring semester of 2019 and I can finally say I’ve done it—briefly. During this past weekend from waking up Sunday through Monday morning (MLK day) I kept track of and logged my use of media or technology. My friends and family were completely right about the experience being eye-opening, but I never expected to be surprised by so many elements of media-logging. me I was initially shocked at how easy it was to lose track of my media use. I would go two hours of randomly checking my phone/ responding to texts and would completely forget that those uses even counted. I found myself constantly having to think back on chunks of time to remember if I had used technology. This “device amnesia” is an obvious indicator of how ingrained media is in to my daily life—I’m still having trouble deciding whether this is a good or bad thing. Many of my uses went unnoticed when I was making an effort to keep track of them. When I was using my phone this way it was never for something bad or distracting—just responding to friends or checking emails, but either way it went unnoticed which is at minimum interesting. While I accept that my log is not accurate on a small scale by any means I did get a strong general view of how often I am using screens and media on a weekend. I know that over the 24 hours I spent around 7 on my phone and at least 4 watching T.V.. Typically, I would have spent more time on my laptop but it was being repaired over the past few days, so all typical times of laptop-use were instead spent on my phone. I think this 11-hours plus of media use, even though it was on the Sunday of a long weekend, is too much. I was hoping that I would be below 10 but with watching a movie and playing video games with friends for a few hours I very easily and unknowingly logged a full day of screen use. Another shocking realization I got from this experiment was that a lot of the time I am using my phone I am being unproductive. While I take pride in the fact that a majority of my usage was spent listening to music, talking to family, or sending texts I feel that I spent way too many hours on social media, Netflix, or YouTube. A goal I now have for myself is to spend 50% less time on social media and put that time towards being productive, reading, doing work, or talking to people in person. I want to try logging my media time again on a weekday when I am kept busy by school and other obligations. For now, I do not have anything positive or negative to take away from the 24 hours as a whole. I probably am using media too much, but who’s to say what is too much? All I know for sure is that my use of technology and media is something I will be much more conscious of moving forward.

PS. I am attaching a copy of my log, I did a very poor job recording my activities on the excel but it provides a general view of my technology timeline for the day.