Last time you read The river video closely: three students, dead fish, a phone call that went nowhere, and a short clip that did not. Today you judge the part media actually played. The question is not whether media was there. It is whether media changed what happened, or only watched it happen.

Evidence that media changed an outcome is different from evidence that media was nearby while something else caused it.

If the answer is no, that piece supports media changing what happened. If the answer is yes, or if the piece only shows noise, reach or a mistake, that piece supports media being present.

Open the interactive. For each piece of evidence from The river video, read the tells, then commit to one call: media changed what happened, or media was only present. After you commit, the reasoning for the defensible call is revealed. Argue with it if you disagree, but stay on that piece of evidence.

Look back at your four calls. On balance, which overall judgement do you defend: media changed what happened, or media was only present? Which single piece does the most work for that call?

Show your overall call with a hand or a board tally. The shares and the false drinking-water claim still matter either way: they show reach and a real failure in the coverage.

On your own, name the one piece of evidence that would have changed your verdict if it had been different. Write one sentence. Be ready to say it aloud.

You weighed evidence from The river video one piece at a time and committed to a judgement about the part media played. You can now separate proof that media changed an outcome from proof that media was only present, and you can still name what the coverage got wrong without losing that distinction.