1. Write a brief overall summary of your findings.
I found two article:
The first one is a more local source, it being from The Oregonian. They summarize the alleged events involving Daylen Austin, who was a defensive back for the Ducks. They include information like when the incident occurred, who was involved, and even the toxicology report of the victim.
The second article was published by USA Today and uses different headers to break down the story. They first go over the general facts like who the suspect is, a description of the victim, and when and where the hit and run occurred. They also briefly discuss a statement from the Oregon Athletics spokesperson and include a section titled “Who is Daylen Austin” to give readers more insight.
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.
In the article from the Oregonian, they include quotes from Austin which comes straight from the source. While the article wasn't an interview with him, his quotes provided a lot of insight with their commentary and acted as primary references. In the USA Today article, the authors include a direct quote from an “Oregon athletics spokesperson” to get primary insight from the organization.
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 were secondary sources since they were written and interpreted by somebody else but they provided great information and detail. In the Oregonian article, there is a lot of detail provided into the specific event. They explain when the incident occurred, who was involved, how Austin's attorney is feeling, all the way down to discussing security footage and the night of the arrest. While broader, the second article still included a lot of insight. They primarily focus on the location of the incident, but they include two other informative sections that don't have to do with the alleged crime. I think it was interesting to look into the point of view of the athletics department, because Austin being an Oregon Ducks football player is the headline. I also think it's interesting how they included information about Austin specifically because readers probably want to know more about him and his role in football more than learning about the specifics of his conviction.
4. What potential biases or interests might each of your sources have?
With the first article being from The Oregonian, there might be more interest in this case than in other local stories because of the success of the Oregon Ducks football team at the moment, but I felt like the article presented unbiased facts that revealed the extent of the crime. The second article also seemed unbiased, but their information was very general and not as in depth as the first article. While there is potential for bias in this article, I also agreed that it had neutral language that covered the topic adequately.
5. What evidence supports the claim you are fact-checking?
I think that finding multiple articles supports the claim that I am fact checking. Instead of choosing one article and completely trusting its contents, I have found another article with a similar claim to compare the information to.
6. What evidence undermines the claim you are fact-checking?
With the sources not having 100% credibility, this could undermine my fact checking. The sources did not come from a database nor do they contain a .gov or .org link that could provide them with more credibility.
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.)
With the articles being not as recent as everyday news, I don't believe there will be a reply because the buzz of this story has most likely passed.
