Think of this as your investigation log. Answer each question to explain what you discovered and how you got there.
1. Write a brief overall summary of your findings.
I found two websites that regarded the view of the director
The first article: https://www.artnews.com/art-news/news/louvre-museum-closed-staff-protest-inadequate-security-1234757928/
This article explains that during a staff meeting, post heist, the members “began booing” when “Louvre director Laurence des Cars tried to address” them. This clearly shows the bad taste in the staff members mouth alone. The article then goes into the specifics of the lack of security, to back up how outdated their system is and why staff may be feeling this way.
The Second Article: https://apnews.com/article/louvre-museum-theft-paris-jewels-b1fb405f231e190a4fc0c272a819186f
This article covers the basics of the heists, rather than specifically zoning in on the director. However, they do mention how she is under “heavy pressure over a heist that stained France’s global image”, which actually brought her to resign. I do think it's interesting how this article includes quotes from real people on their opinion of the heist, which gives greater insight into how the general public may be viewing this event.
2. What primary sources did you find (e.g., transcripts, videos of politician speeches, tweets from public figures, scientific studies)? For each source, write at least one or two sentences explaining what you learned. Include all links.
The first source, by ARTnews, includes quotes from people they interviewed, but they don't include a lot of primary information. For example, a spokesperson for the museum corrected a false allegation by stating their open times, and the article included their quote right in their article. The second article, apnews.com, acknowledges real people in their "disbelief among visitors” section. This primary encounter helps the reader understand what the general public may be thinking, and how that reflects onto the opinion of the director.
3. What secondary sources did you find (e.g., newspapers, magazines)? Only use secondary sources if sufficient primary sources are not available. For each source, write at least one or two sentences explaining what you learned. Include all links.
Both sources are technically secondary sources, and I learned how the heist was successful from a security point of view. In the ARTnews article, they explain the staff positions and the lack of technology, mainly the “lack of such equipment as CCTV”. The apnews article actually covers a lot of aspects of the heist. For example they have sections titled “France acknowledges failings” and “The loot”, which give us more insight to the entire heist, rather than only one portion of the event.
4. What potential biases or interests might each of your sources have?
I would say that both sources include credible, un-biased information. Potentially, the articles could lean to criticize the security of the Louvre from the central idea of the lack of technology, but both articles include quotes that back up the information provided.
5. What evidence supports the claim you are fact-checking?
I think that finding multiple articles supports my fact check, and the tale of the heist is consistent within both articles. Both articles also include the mention of the director proposing her immediate step-down, and they both highlight the lack of security.
6. What evidence undermines the claim you are fact-checking?
While both sources provide credibility, they are not from a database or a trusted education site. Additionally, with this being very recent news it's hard to verify exactly what's true, with there being so much new information about the heist being introduced daily.
7. What happened when you tried contacting the person or group who made the original claim? (Always try to contact them—it’s okay if you don’t get a reply. For example, if the claim is that the president said something, try reaching out to the administration. If it was a Bluesky user, message that user on Bluesky.)
While the event, and the articles, are recent there is likely to be no reply because of the large scale nature of both sites.
