Below are some strategies suggested by academic articles and other sources:
On the importance of fact-checking sources through other sources:
The article aims at a standard definition for "fake news" and fake-news identification method. The authors define "fake news" as: "(a) content holding itself out as a news piece (b) that makes objectively false assertions that given events have occurred (c) in a materially false manner" (pp. 120, 141). The strategy that they propose is: "the most reliable way to identify fake news is to focus on whether a news piece’s assertions that given factual events have occurred are objectively false in a material way," (p. 141). The authors argue that fact-checking news sources (the events reported and assertions made) through reliable sources is a better method than looking for an author’s intent. Furthermore, "If some of the material assertions have a source that supports its claims, that type of piece should not be called fake news," p. 144. The authors point out that some unreliable sources can be right sometimes while some reliable sources can be wrong sometimes (p. 150).
Source: Walters, R. M. (2018). How to Tell a Fake: Fighting Back against Fake News on the Front Lines of Social Media. Texas Review of Law & Politics, 23(1), 111–179. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=shib&db=lgh&AN=134763624&site=eds-live&custid=northwest
**************************************************************************************************************
**************************************************************************************************************
This book offers several strategies to investigate information found on the web.
Quote: “What people need most when confronted with a claim which may not be 100% true is things they can do to get closer to the truth. They need something we have decided to call strategies.” (Caulfield, 2017, p. 5-6)
• Check for previous work: Look around to see if someone else has already fact-checked the claim or provided a synthesis of research.
- Check fact-checking sites.
- Run special searches: site: politifact.com site:smopes.com site:www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/ site:factcheck.org
• Go upstream to the source: Go “upstream” to the source of the claim. Most web content is not original. Get to the original source to understand the trustworthiness of the information.
• Read laterally: Once you get to the source of a claim, read what other people say about the source (publication, author, etc.). The truth is in the network.
- Don't rely on the "About page"
- Open new tabs and research the new site (e.g., authorship, ownership, commentary)
- When encountering a new site, ask: What are the site's worldviews; process in place for encouraging accuracy, verifying facts, and correcting mistakes; aims (what are they trying to promote or accomplish?) and expertise (what makes them an expert)?
- Figure out whether you can trust the site before you trust the story.
- Check credible sources to see what they write about the new source you found. (e.g., Southern Poverty Law Center.)
- Run a WHOIS search.
Description: WHOIS isn't an acronym, though it may look like one. In fact, it is the system that asks the question, who is responsible for a domain name or an IP address?
Site: https://whois.icann.org/en
Example: cnn.com
- Look up a journal's impact factor (for example, by Googling journal title and the words: impact factor) to eliminate journals that are not favored by experts as a way to find reliable evidence/research. (Doesn’t guarantee that article won’t be junk.)
- Explore an academic's expertise by using Google Scholar to see how many articles an author has published and how many times their work has been cited.
- To evaluate news sources, distinguish between sources that engage in newsgathering and news analysis. Most do both.
- Bias relates to the "news analysis" part. To the extent the bias exists, it’s in what they choose to cover, to whom they choose to talk, and what they imply in the way they arrange those facts they collect. (p. 116)
- Asking “What is this publication’s record with concern to accuracy?” might be a better way to validate a fact than asking “What is the bias of this publication?”
- Look to "newspapers of record" for more accurate news (their attention to detail, rigorous investigation, and national reach/scope separates these from the rest). However, doesn’t mean newspapers of record have a monopoly on the truth.
• Circle back: If you get lost, or hit dead ends, or find yourself going down an increasingly confusing rabbit hole, back up and start over knowing what you know now. You’re likely to take a more informed path with different search terms and better decisions.
Caulfield, 2017, p. 7) Check your emotions. When you feel strong emotion —happiness, anger, pride, vindication — and that emotion pushes you to share a “fact” with others, STOP.
Source: (Caulfield. 2017. M. A. Web literacy for student fact-checkers. [eBook]. Retrieved from: https://webliteracy.pressbooks.com/
Or Google Drive: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxU2UK1rWxPYQnhqbnRMTkdsZUE/view
**************************************************************************************************************
**************************************************************************************************************
This brief article mentions a six-step process to attempt to convince people of facts when their beliefs are wrong.
****************************************************************************************************************************
****************************************************************************************************************************
Check Your Emotions:
On pages 275-276 the authors present a nine-part method to analyze one’s thoughts when one is feeling negative emotions. It can reduce depression, or so they state on page 275. On pages 277-278 the authors list seventeen cognitive distortions that affect automatic thoughts.
Source: Lukianoff, G., & Haidt, J. (2018). The coddling of the American mind : how good intentions and bad ideas are setting up a generation for failure. New York : Penguin Press, [2018]. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=shib&db=cat05415a&AN=epcc.b1443123&site=eds-live
**************************************************************************************************************
**************************************************************************************************************
