HIS+100+Module+Four+Activity+Bias+Template
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
Southern New Hampshire University *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
100
Subject
History
Date
Feb 20, 2024
Type
docx
Pages
3
Uploaded by PresidentEnergyCaribou46
HIS 100 Module Four Activity Template: Bias in Primary Sources
Locate an additional primary source relevant to your historical event. Use it and the primary source you identified in a previous module to answer the questions below. Replace the bracketed text with your responses.
Source One
Conduct source analysis on a primary source relevant to your historical event.
Attempt to write the APA style citation for your first primary source and include a link to it. You will not be penalized for incorrect format.
Abramowitz, M. (2011).
INR Information Memorandum from Morton Abramowitz to the Secretary of State: Estimate of Fatalities at Chernobyl Reactor Accident. Secret. https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/document/19496-national-security-archive-doc-9-inr-information (Original work published 1986)
Respond to the following questions:
Who authored or created the primary source?
o
Morton I. Abramowitz
What was the author’s position in society at the time the primary source was created?
o
Assistant Secretary of State for Intelligence and Research
When was the primary source created?
o
May 2
nd
, 1986
Where was the primary source created, released, or publicized?
o
Where Created: Unsure. Information memo from Assistant Secretary of State for Intelligence and Research. You could reasonably assume it was generated from his office.
o
Released: May 2
nd
, 1986
o
Publicized: Declassified December 29
th
, 2011
Who was the intended audience for the primary source?
o
Secretary of State, George Pratt Shultz
Why was the primary source created?
o
To inform the Secretary of State of estimated fatalities from the reactor accident.
Whose perspective(s) is presented in the source?
o
Source is presented from the perspective of Morton Abramowitz.
1
Source Two
Conduct a source analysis on a primary source relevant to your historical event.
Attempt to write the APA style citation for your second primary source and include a link to it. You will not be penalized for incorrect format.
“Notice: Information from Places of Evacuation,” May 08, 1986, History and Public Policy Program Digital Archive, HDA SBU, f. 11, spr. 992, t. 29. Originally published by the Center for Research into the Liberation Movement (TsDVR) together with the Ivan Franko National University of Lviv at http://avr.org.ua/index.php/viewDoc/24469/.
https://digitalarchive.wilsoncenter.org/document/134303
Respond to the following questions:
Who authored or created the primary source?
o
Unknown KGB officer
What was the author’s or creator’s position in society at the time the primary source was created?
o
KGB officer from the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic
When was the primary source created?
o
May 08, 1986
Where was the primary source created, released, or publicized?
o
Where created: unknown.
o
Released: May 08, 1986
Who was the intended audience for the primary source?
o
KGB officers of a higher level than the person writing the document.
Why was the primary source created?
o
The provide information related to dissatisfaction amongst the locals on evacuees receiving better treatment and express how the situation has been handled.
Whose perspective(s) is presented in the source?
o
Presents the perspectives from KGB officers in areas around Chernobyl which are then relayed by the officer who wrote the report.
Both Sources
Analyze the primary sources relevant to your historical event for the presence of bias.
Source One:
Source one clearly contains bias. The subject of the memo includes a handwritten addition of “Speculative” before estimate. The first sentence “The entire intelligence community believe a fatality figure of two is preposterous”, contains bias by use of “entire” and “preposterous”. He 2
also mentions that there would be a large crew compared to the US reactors. There is also speculation based on the imagery of the site.
Source Two:
Source two does not present clear bias like source one. I do see some bias in saying the Kiev is “basically normal” even though there is a statement that 30 million rubles were withdrawn from
banks in two days. Compare how your historical event is represented in your primary sources.
Source one presents the event from the point of view of a United States official that is clearly skeptical of the information given by the Russians. This is likely based on his previous experiences with not getting the whole/true story from Russian officials. The mention of imagery
and its analysis is interesting, both governments spied on each other during this time and analysis of photos was sometimes the best information the United States could get.
The source two writer seems to be relaying information the best he can to provide a report to higher levels in the KGB. He presents the subject as if everything has been handled and there is no need for concern. It appears that the arguments over Vodka are commonplace. I would expect a report like this to come from someone who does not feel secure in their position and would not write a report that talks badly of the situation.
3
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help