Okay, so Snooki is probably not the most credible source of information (that was just me using the unexpectedness part of sticky messages). However, if Snooki were to get on television and say something like, “Earth revolves around the sun,” and someone like Stephen Hawking gets up and says, “the sun revolves around Earth,” who would you believe? Obviously, we all know from our elementary science classes that Earth revolves around the sun. It’s something we’ve been taught and has theoretically been proven. So going back to the messages Snooki and Stephen Hawking gave, who would we believe? We have Snooki who’s… Snooki. And then we have Stephen Hawking who discovered black holes and all that good stuff (people discovered black holes way before Hawking, but if you were to tell someone that he discovered black holes, they’d probably believe you because it’s Stephen Hawking we’re talking about). This goes on to my question: does the credibility of a message come from the source or the message itself? To be honest, I don’t believe anything that Stephen Hawking says, but that’s just me. I just felt like using him as an example because he discovered black holes and all that good stuff (is this message sticking yet?). I also wouldn’t rely on Snooki for astronomical information. That’s because I don’t believe fist pumping is the answer to everything. But that’s just me.
Summing this all up, credibility in messages is probably the hardest thing to come by. You always get garbage thrown at you by a man in a tie, or a pile of gold thrown at you by a garbageman. It leaves you standing there wondering what’s crap and what’s real. In the end, the audience determines the credibility of a message. Each individual has their own opinion which tells them whether or not to believe something or someone. So back to the original question of this post, when it comes to credibility, is it the messenger or the message?