Loading presentation...

Present Remotely

Send the link below via email or IM

Copy

Present to your audience

Start remote presentation

  • Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
  • People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
  • This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
  • A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
  • Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article

Do you really want to delete this prezi?

Neither you, nor the coeditors you shared it with will be able to recover it again.

DeleteCancel

Make your likes visible on Facebook?

Connect your Facebook account to Prezi and let your likes appear on your timeline.
You can change this under Settings & Account at any time.

No, thanks

Copy of Substantiated vs. Unsubstantiated

Teaching students the difference between substantiated (concrete) evidence as opposed to unsubstantiated evidence.
by

Christine Hodges

on 10 October 2013

Comments (0)

Please log in to add your comment.

Report abuse

Transcript of Copy of Substantiated vs. Unsubstantiated

Substantiated
vs.
Unsubstantiated
"To substantiate" means
"to give substance to"
So when writing, you substantiate your evidence
by finding concrete, trustworthy sources to back up
what you're saying.
Substantiate = concrete
UNsubstantiated evidence, then would be
evidence you can't back up - like
an opinion
or an untrustworthy source
Why does any of this matter?
Good question. Let's ask this lady:
This is Casey Anthony. She's
just been found "Not Guilty" for
the murder of her 2-year-old
daughter, Caylee.
Why was she found "Not Guilty"?
The prosecution could find no
substantial evidence that proved
Caylee was murdered.
had 33 days of testimonies; over 400 pieces of evidence;
over 90 witnesses.

Not one piece of evidence
was considered substantial -
concrete or trustworthy -
enough to prove Casey's guilt.

According to David Lohr, a reporter for
the trial

Now let's take a look at how the
story was reported in the media.
Media can be the news, or it can
be any public platform like Twitter
or Facebook.

Remember David Lohr of the Huffington Post?
He reported all that evidence.

Do you think he's trustworthy?
What about the Huffington Post?

David Lohr is a former senior investigative crime writer for CourtTV’s Crime Library, David also worked as a crime writer for Investigation Discovery, TLC and AOL News. He has been writing about crime and criminals for more than 15 years.
Is David Lohr trustworthy?
Do you think his report used
substantiated evidence?
Other people also reported on the
Casey Anthony verdict.
For example,
Kim Kardashian
had something
to say on Twitter.
Kim has over 16 million followers on Twitter. That's 3 times the population of Colorado (5,116,796).
Kim tweeted, "WHAT!!!!???!!!! CASEY ANTHONY FOUND NOT GUILTY!!!! I am speechless!!!"
Of course Kim also tweets things like,
"How fab is bright denim in summer? Get
our bright skinny jeans from our Kardashian
Kollection Denim." @KimKardashian
Is Kim Kardashian a substantiated or unsubstantiated
source on the Casey Anthony trial?
Can Kim Kardashian have an
opinion about a murder trial
that she knows nothing about?

Which is substantiated?
David Lohr's 400 pieces
of evidence and 90 witnesses?

Or Kim Kardashian's tweet?

Careful when looking for
substantiated information
on the Internet. A search for
Casey Anthony results in the following:
Which of these
seems like a
substantiated
source?
Full transcript