The Block: CASE 18
Representation and source selection
1: STORY
The starter describes a video calling a block dangerous while relying on police footage. The document exercise concerns a different story: an article celebrating a new plaza, supported by two quoted residents from new market-rate buildings. The video transcript is not supplied. Both examples raise representation questions, but their evidence must remain separate.
Lupa counts the actual sources in the article before debating its conclusion. Two residents may describe their own experiences accurately. Trouble arises when a broad phrase makes those experiences sound like a neighborhood-wide finding. The packet shows a narrow source selection, not that other residents disagree.
Onda reads the community profile, which describes differences in age, tenure, language, income, and length of residence. Those categories reveal possible gaps in the reporting plan. They do not assign opinions to people. A long-term renter might welcome the plaza; a new resident might raise concerns. The crew must ask.
Nexo finds possible contacts in the community-board testimony list: a tenant association, small business owner, youth sports group, accessibility advocate, and new resident. One listed speaker cannot represent everyone in a category. Voz builds a revised reporting plan with open questions about use, access, benefits, and costs, then narrows any headline to what the resulting evidence can support.
2: EVIDENCE
These are NPW practice documents. Real-world sources are credited separately below.
SOURCE A — News excerpt
NPW practice article excerpt. “Residents say the new plaza has transformed the neighborhood.” Two quoted residents both live in new market-rate buildings.
What it establishes: Shows whose voices the article selected.
Question while reading: Who is missing from the phrase “residents say”?
SOURCE B — Census/community profile table
NPW practice data. Neighborhood residents differ by age, tenure, language, income, and length of residence.
What it establishes: Shows diversity in the area. It does not tell you what each group thinks.
Question while reading: Why can’t demographic data substitute for interviews?
SOURCE C — Community-board testimony list
NPW practice document. Speakers include tenant association, small business owner, youth sports group, accessibility advocate, and new resident.
What it establishes: Shows more perspectives that could be contacted.
Question while reading: How would you build a more representative source list without tokenizing?
Source A establishes that the article quotes two residents, both from new market-rate buildings. It supports a critique of the breadth of source selection, but does not prove either account is false. Source B identifies demographic variation that can guide outreach; it cannot supply missing interviews or tell us any group's opinion.
Source C offers additional potential contacts through a testimony list, without providing their testimony or making them representative spokespeople. Together, the sources justify broadening reporting and narrowing unsupported collective language. They do not establish neighborhood consensus, universal opposition, or the claims made in the separate starter video. An editor controls revisions; residents supply experiences and evidence.
3: PRACTICE
Demographic differences guide whose experiences to seek. They do not establish those experiences or the views people hold.
Responses stay in this browser. Use “Download my notes” to keep a copy.
4: TASK
Create a source-balance plan for a revised story. Include one clear claim or question, at least two source references, one statement of uncertainty/scope, the person or office with relevant authority, and one realistic next step.
My revised-story plan asks: who uses the plaza, who benefits, and who encounters barriers? The two quoted residents share one housing context, so I would narrow the article's broad resident claim (Source A). I would use the neighborhood profile to check outreach gaps without predicting opinions from demographics (Source B). I would contact the tenant association, business owner, youth sports group, accessibility advocate, and new resident on the testimony list, then seek additional residents beyond organized speakers (Source C). The editor can revise the story. My next step is an interview plan using shared open questions; this packet does not establish consensus or anyone's unrecorded views.
How would you investigate a school article claiming students love a new schedule if all quoted students belong to the same club?
A specific case with student handout and presenter notes about screenshots that impersonate people or organizations. It is not a channel or a generic collection.
Which claim can the screenshot establish by itself, and which claim requires finding the original post?
Use a fictional school-closing rumor in a group-chat frame. Students separate visual clues from actual corroboration, then write a correction that does not amplify the rumor.
Make: A source trail and a three-sentence group-chat correction.
Public case page. Some linked supporting documents use Google Docs. Video playback and captions were not verified.
Young Indigenous people in Virginia describe heritage through lived practices, art and community. It provides a current student-produced example for examining who gets to represent a community.
Which details come from the young people themselves, and how do those details complicate a stereotype?
Compare a broad category label with two precise self-descriptions from the story. Students may create a place or interest portrait instead of disclosing their own cultural identity.
Make: A representation checklist and a consent-based interview plan.
PBS labels the episode TV-G and CC and provides a transcript. Playback not tested.
A short student report about Hometown DC, an oral-history project centered on residents. It connects directly to the brand's DC and neighborhood interests.
How would the story change if it used only tourist landmarks instead of residents' accounts?
Storyboard a 45-second neighborhood portrait with one resident perspective, one verifiable local fact and one question still unanswered. Use drawn scenes if filming is unavailable.
Make: A six-panel storyboard with an interview-consent step.
Public PBS episode page, rated TV-G. The inspected page did not display a CC badge or transcript; do not promise captions until checked.
45–55 min core, 80–100 min full
| Criterion | Beginning | Developing | Strong | Advanced |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Accuracy & scope | Repeats claim. | Mostly accurate; scope incomplete. | Accurate and properly scoped. | Accurate, scoped, and explicit about uncertainty. |
| Evidence | Little or unrelated. | Relevant source, sometimes overstated. | Explains what sources establish. | Compares sources and limits. |
| Authority | Names actor without role. | Plausible authority. | Explains who decides and why. | Maps proposal, approval, implementation, review. |
| Communication | Vague or audience-mismatched. | Main point understandable. | Clear, specific, audience-aware. | Clear, accessible, precise, well-qualified. |
