Evaluation of Social Media Sources

In this post I will be analyzing two social media sources regarding my controversy about the recent revisions made to the DSM-5. The main revision my controversy focuses on is the deletion of the bereavement exclusion to diagnose Major Depressive Disorder. So now, a patient can be diagnosed with clinical depression even if they have recently lost a loved one, which would have previously just have been considered grief.

It was significantly more difficult to find sources about this topic on social media. I imagine this is because the DSM is a manual used only by physicians and those in the Psychology field. Many ordinary people on social media would not have any knowledge about the DSM, much less have any opinions to voice about the recently revised version of it. For this reason, one of my sources is a Psychology Today article shared through the magazine's Facebook page, and the other is a TED Talk discussing the consequences of society's stigma surrounding depression.

Source A: "The NIMH Withdraws Support for DSM-5," Psychology Today

Bergmann, Hannah, "The NIMH Withdraws Support for DSM-5," September 6, 2015 via screenshot, Attribution Generic 2.0 License

1. Credibility - Can you corroborate who the person who posted the social media message is. Can you Google them? Do they belong to an organization or institution that bestows credibility on them (for example, a university, governmental organization, non-profit, company, etc.)?
• The magazine Psychology Today posted this article on their Facebook page. Their account is a verified page on Facebook meaning that their account is the only official account for Psychology Today magazine. This gives the page a large amount of credibility.
2. Location - Are they in the place they are tweeting or posting about? Are they directly involved with any of the events relevant to your controversy?
• Psychology Today magazine was not involved in the revisions of the DSM, their writers are just reporting on the subject. However, they are involved with the controversy because they are a Psychology magazine, dealing with issues in modern Psychology such as this one.
3. Network - Who is in their network and who follows them? Do other individuals with institutional credibility associate with this person on social media?
• Because this Facebook account is a company page, no individual can interact with them and their followers are unavailable to view.
4. Content - Can the information they’re relying on in their tweet or post be corroborated from other sources?
• Yes, the information in the article can be corroborated from other sources and the article sites many other sources through hyperlinks.
5. Contextual updates - Do they usually post or tweet on this topic? If so, what did past or updated posts say? Do they fill in more details?
• Psychology Today has written articles in the past about the DSM, but no other articles specifically address the National Institute of Mental Health withdrawing support for the DSM.
6. Age - What is the age of the account in question? Be wary of recently created accounts.
• This Facebook account was created in 2008
7. Reliability - Is the source of information reliable?
• Yes, Psychology Today is a reputable magazine with reliable information.

Source B: "Why We Need to Talk About Depression," TED Talk by Kevin Breel

Bergmann, Hannah, "Why We Need to Talk About Depression: TED Talk by Kevin Breel," September 6, 2015 via screenshot, Attribution Generic 2.0 License

1. Credibility - Can you corroborate who the person who posted the social media message is. Can you Google them? Do they belong to an organization or institution that bestows credibility on them (for example, a university, governmental organization, non-profit, company, etc.)?
• Kevin Breel is a comedian, author, and mental health activist. He has an official Facebook page and website, and has been featured by the Huffington Post, NBC, MTV, as well as TED.
2. Location - Are they in the place they are tweeting or posting about? Are they directly involved with any of the events relevant to your controversy?
• Kevin Breel's TED Talk was not related to the recent revisions to the DSM. However, Breel explained that he struggles with depression, and the diagnosing of depression has been altered by the recent revision of the DSM.
3. Network - Who is in their network and who follows them? Do other individuals with institutional credibility associate with this person on social media?
• Because this is an official Facebook page, no individual can interact with him and his followers are unavailable to view.
4. Content - Can the information they’re relying on in their tweet or post be corroborated from other sources?
• No, the information he talks about in his TED Talk is mainly based on personal experience.
5. Contextual updates - Do they usually post or tweet on this topic? If so, what did past or updated posts say? Do they fill in more details?
• Kevin Breel is a mental health activist. He has expressed concerns over the stigma surrounding mental illness in the past. He has a book releasing in September with more information about his personal struggle with depression.
6. Age - What is the age of the account in question? Be wary of recently created accounts.
• The TED Talk Youtube account was created in 2006.
7. Reliability - Is the source of information reliable?
• Yes, TED is a reputable organization that carefully considers who they invite to give a TED Talk, so this is a reliable source.