Fact Checking And Verifying Sources
Back in 2001 when blogging was still shiny and new, journalist and blogger Ken Layne noted that using the resources of the Internet and the tools of communication and collaboration that were then in their infancy, online writers and bloggers could “
Fact check your ass.”
Now, with the rapid dispersal of data and enormous outreach of social networks like Twitter and Facebook as
Bill Moyers notes,
Each of us must act as our own editor, adopting the skills and taking the time (yes) to determine the real deal. One of the key newsroom axioms to adopt: “If your mother says she loves you, check it out.” In other words, the more you are inclined to believe something, the more you should be skeptical.
This is an interesting Fast Company article about a shift in terms of how we value information, and evaluate it.
Say Goodbye To The Information Age: It’s All About Reputation Now
It's worth reading, but I want to call attention to two brief quotations. First the previous condition:
We are experiencing a fundamental paradigm shift in our relationship to knowledge. From the “information age,” we are moving towards the “reputation age,” in which information will have value only if it is already filtered, evaluated, and commented upon by others. Seen in this light, reputation has become a central pillar of collective intelligence today. It is the gatekeeper to knowledge, and the keys to the gate are held by others. The way in which the authority of knowledge is now constructed makes us reliant on what are the inevitably biased judgments of other people, most of whom we do not know.
The current condition, and the increasing importance of knowing the source and the reputation:
The paradigm shift from the age of information to the age of reputation must be taken into account when we try to defend ourselves from “fake news” and other misinformation and disinformation techniques that are proliferating through contemporary societies. What a mature citizen of the digital age should be competent at is not spotting and confirming the veracity of the news. Rather, she should be competent at reconstructing the reputational path of the piece of information in question, evaluating the intentions of those who circulated it, and figuring out the agendas of those authorities that leant it credibility.
In short, who says it, what's the source, what's their agenda, etc. It is, in other words, like Cicero, ask
cui bono: who does it benefit?
L. Cassius ille, quem populus Romanus verissimum et sapientissimum iudicem putabat, identidem in causis quaerere solebat, cui bono fuisset?[1]
The famous Lucius Cassius, whom the Roman people used to regard as a very honest and wise judge, was in the habit of asking, time and again, to whose benefit is it? —Cicero: Pro Roscio Amerino, §§ 84, 86
Fake News Is A Thing
“Fake news was a term specifically about people who purposely fabricated stories for clicks and revenue,” said David Mikkelson, the founder of Snopes, the myth-busting website. “Now it includes bad reporting, slanted journalism and outright propaganda. And I think we’re doing a disservice to lump all those things together.”
Wielding Claims of "Fake News" Conservatives Take Aim at Mainstream Media
Fake news refers to articles, posts and essays deliberately created by writers, often professional highly-paid writers who know that they are lying and misrepresenting others. They deliberately present fiction as news.
Fake news is proliferating rapidly, in part because well-meaning people forward the links of fake news stories via forums, and social networks like Twitter and Facebook. Unlike old-fashioned propaganda, which was easily spotted as propaganda because of the writer, publisher, or both, fake news can appear legitimate to the less than careful reader.
One attribute of fake news is a headline that's designed to grab your attention, even if it's negative attention, and get you to click to read the whole story. Often the headline is grossly warped out of proportion to the rest of the story; such headlines are
clickbait. They only exist to get readers to click—and sell ads. Here are
some signs to watch for as “markers” for fake news.
Politifact has a fake news page that flags known fake news, with citations. Factcheck.org has a page with suggestions about
how to spot fake news.
28 % of Americans in a survey administered by Gallup/Knight foundation in January 2018 thought that reports that accurately cast a politician in a negative light to be "fake news"
.
That means we have a lot of checking and citing to do, in order to
Get Smart about News.
When you see fake news, help clean it up by politely noting that it’s factually inaccurate with a link to a site like Snopes.com or Politifact that cites the story and notes that it is fake.
We need to get back to looking at sources and evaluating them for legitimacy, bias and truth. Bias is a natural part of communication, but pointing out bias is important. It's part of weighing the veracity and legitimacy of a source.
The following tips are from personal experience as well as other similar pages about evaluating Web sites and stories; principally these from journalists:
Check the URL
The URL is the address of the site; it usually ends in .com or .gov. or .org, but there are other possibilities, too.
- Look in your Web browsers address field for the URL of the site you are on.
- Check the links in a Web page before clicking by pointing your cursor (the "pointer") at a link and looking at the bottom of your Web Browser to see where the link goes.
- Is it a site you're familiar with that's generally well-regarded?
- Are you sure it's that site, and not one trying to pull a fast one?
snopes.com is real; snopes.org is not.
Who's Responsible for the Site and the Writing?
- Are the posts or articles signed by people whose names you recognize?
- Does the site have an About page that is clear and believable? Or is it made up?
A real About page typically indicates who owns the site, who works or writes for it, and what their credentials or expertise is. A vague statement like Janet has a doctorate in Economics is often a red flag; people with real degrees from respectable institutions will be specific. Janet Munro has a Ph.D. in Economics from Stanford University. Her dissertation was on the impact of the gold standard in 19th century Europe.
- Is there a clear way to contact the news site or organization?
- How credible is the site in terms of appearance? Does it look amateur? Is it the online version of lots of blinking neon lights?
- What's the quality of writing?
- Do they publish retractions to correct errors?
I'm making a distinction between voluntary correction of genuine mistakes and retractions forced on publishers by litigation.
Red Flags:
- Watch for sites that hang a .co on the end of the URL; they’re often pulling a fast one:
abcnews.com.co is NOT abcnews.com, the real site.
- Are there lots of misspelled words and grammar errors and text that’s in ALL CAPS?
- Is the punctuation weird, particularly in the over-use of exclamation points? (Journalists used to call exclamation points “screamers”; they tend to be rarely used by legitimate writers, journalists and scholars.)
- Are there lots of animated graphic ads and offers to help you win lots and lots of money?
Read More Than Headlines
Read the entire story.
- How many sources are cited or referred to? Can you check the sources yourself?
- The sources should be verifiable. People are quoted by name, title and where they work (although sometimes they are quoted anonymously), and there are links to reports or court documents. There are primary sources that you can verify, not just hearsay, accusations or assertions.
- Are the names of real people and places you can identify by Googling?
Search the names of people, places or titles in a story. For example, the false story about Clinton being behind an FBI agent’s murder-suicide, said it took place in Walkerville, Maryland. There is no such place. There is a WalkerSville. Tricky.
- Check quotations in a story by copying them or unusual parts of them; are they cited in other known reputable sources?
- Are the quotations being taken out of context, or altered? Too many ellipses are often a red flag.
- Quotations are primary sources. They should be verifiable, from real people.
- What’s the background of the author on the byline? Is it someone who seems credible? Can you find other articles by them in reputable publications or sites? Do they have a Twitter feed? Who follows them?
- Check the comments; are other readers flagging problems with the story? Often the devil is in the details.
What's the Date?
We’ve all seen what happens when a thread from six years ago on AW gets “necroed” because a new member doesn’t realize he or she is posting in an ancient thread that’s no longer relevant.
Check the date on the story or Web page.
- Is it old news?
- Is it old news that someone’s trying to put a new and less-than-accurate spin on?
Check those Photos
- Is it a stock photo that someone is trying to make be something it isn't?
- Is it an old photo that's been recycled?
Photos of Hillary Clinton stumbling back in February
were recycled closer to the election to give the impression she was sick.
How to Check Photos
Right-click or Control-Click on OS X/macOS to display the image in a new Tab or Window.
Then
use Google to do a reverse image search to see where else the image is used.
You can also
use TinEye to do a reverse image search.
Check Those Biases
Bias is part of human nature; we all have them.
- Be aware of your own biases, and those of others—including news sources.
- Read widely.
- Read about the same subject or event from multiple sources and multiple points-of-view.
As Alicia Shepherd suggests:
If you lean left, watch Fox News. Listen to Alex Jones or Rush Limbaugh or read Breitbart.
If you lean right, tune in Rachel Maddow on MSNBC. Pay attention to Amy Goodman’s Democracy Now!
Or watch more middle-of-the-road news on PBS’ NewsHour. Listen to NPR.
Check out Media Matters, which monitors conservative media and the Media Research Center, which monitors the mainstream media.
Sources like Limbaugh or Breitbart are repellant, but you need to know what others are reading and hearing. And know that some people will believe things that are patently ridiculous.
STOP AND THINK before you reflexively pass on a link via Twitter or Facebook.
- Read the entire piece.
- Ask yourself if it's accurate.
- Some excellent questions to ask in terms of thinking critically via Recommendo and Wabisabi Learning.
- Ask yourself how do you know it's true Have you verified it via other sources?
- You can check lots of fake news and parodies by using Snopes.com.
- PolitiFact rates the veracity of stories and news and offers citations you can check yourself.
- First Draft News flags hoaxes and offers citations regarding sources.
- Reuters Fact Check has Reuters editors and journalists fact-checking current social media memes and trends.
- Watch out for parodies that might pass for news. TheOnion and similar sites are often hilarious, and subversively comment on the news, but the people you forward the parody to might not know it's a parody.
Don't Help Fake News Proliferate