Sites for Fact Checking.
Jun. 26th, 2018 12:54 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
charisstomaSites and assessment of sites chart
And then there is this:
So about that viral list of fake news sites
By James Hoyt 12:14 pm EDT November 17, 2016
Melissa Zimdars, associate professor of communications at Merrimack College
http://college.usatoday.com/2016/11/17/fake-news-sites-list-melissa-zinders/
Corrections & clarifications: The following story has been updated to correct misquoted information from Professor Zimdars. A screenshot of a portion of the list of misleading websites has been replaced, to reflect the fact that Professor Zimdars took down her list, as she mentions considering doing in the interview.
Have you seen that list of fake news sites to avoid that’s been spreading like wildfire this week?
It was created by Melissa Zimdars, associate professor of communications at Merrimack College. USA TODAY College talked with Professor Zimdars to ask her about her list.
UPDATE: The list was taken offline after this interview was first published.
Note: This interview has been edited lightly and condensed for clarity.
What caused you to compile this list?
So, the list was originally just intended for my “Introduction to Mass Communication” students. We’ve been talking in the last month about journalism and newspapers and having frequent conversations about the election and media coverage, and I was concerned, at times, by some of the sources that they were citing, which is the concern I’ve had for years — and almost anyone who teaches at a college will say that that’s an increasingly important issue, especially since so many of them just Google whatever information they’re looking for.
So … I posted it to Facebook to my friends, you know, “Hey, media and communication people, if you think of other examples you come across,” and so many of them sent me Facebook messages or comments and emails and I looked through them or through some of the people sent me blogs or other sources.
So I started compiling this list, and in the process of doing so, people were asking me if they could share it with another media person they knew just in academic circles. People were like “Oh, this could be a useful teaching tool.”
One of the main impetuses besides making it public on Facebook to share with other media scholars was someone telling me when you Google popular vote counts, the first Google News item that pops up is “70news.wordpress.com” which is a fake website saying that Hillary Clinton lost the popular vote. I was like, “Oh my gosh.”
And so at that point I started adding to it more, and it just took off. It wasn’t intended to be widely distributed. It was intended to be talked about in class or to have other media and communications teachers talking about it with their students.
But not all the sites on the list consist of entirely fake stories, right?
I think it’s really important to note that on this document I created, there’s four different kinds of sources, and so a lot of the problem, and why I’m actually personally considering removing the document temporarily, is because I don’t think people are actually reading it when they’re sharing it. And I’m worried that it might be perpetuating misinformation when that’s what it’s supposed to be trying to help.
Because that list identifies some fake news sites, some that may be misleading or unreliable that do report sometimes on actual events to various degrees to truthiness.
Then there are sites that generally do okay reporting on stuff, but they rely on clickbait-style Facebook descriptions or headlines to encourage circulation, so sometimes those headlines don’t match with the articles’ content, and that can lead to misinformation.
And then the last is just satirical websites that some people take literally. The idea there is that if you’re on The Onion and really mad about what you’re reading, maybe read some more, because this is a satirical website.
Related: 7 ways to spot fake news stories
So the document was meant to cover all these different types of sites, but people are taking it as this list of “fake” sites, which is not its purpose.
How much of an influence do you think the fake sites had on voters’ perception of the election?
I think the actual fake websites undoubtedly had an influence, but there’s no way for me to determine the scope. In a lot of ways, I’m more concerned less with partisan presses — we have a long history of partisan presses serving a very important role — but rather the kinds of journalistic practices for the websites that kind of straddle the news and opinion.
And I feel that even though the conversation the last couple of days has been about fake news, I think what’s more problematic is this kind of liminal state, where there’s sort of fact and opinion and all this stuff kind of mixed together. I think that makes it harder for readers to decipher.
Do you have personal opinions of the sources on the list?
I read several of the publications listed, so I’m not trying to pass a value judgment on them. They’re on the list possibly because they rely on clickbait headlines sometimes, and so it’s important to understand if they’re coming from a particular perspective or trying to emphasize a particular point, that people need to read widely in order to create a fuller picture of whatever events they’re reading about.
Why do places like Breitbart and The Blaze (more conservative) go on the list but The Daily Kos (more liberal) doesn’t?
Trying to make it comprehensive is virtually impossible, just as a person. For example, I have an unpublished document of other suggestions I’ve gotten that is 300 sources long. And people have been emailing me saying that CNN and the New York Times and all of these publications sometimes use clickbait and they should be on there too.
So the reason that there’s sites missing right now is kind of pressing “pause” to figure out the best way to keep expanding this and to classify it, especially as it’s receiving wider views.
I think that The Daily Kos, for example, is definitely similar in terms of its journalistic practices in terms of relying on clickbait sometimes. I definitely would add that to the list, but part of me is even thinking of taking down the list entirely just for my own personal sanity.
Tell me about the MSNBC.website.
People were really mad that I “included MSNBC but not Fox News,” but the website is clearly fake MSNBC, not the real one! And so this media literacy document is demonstrating further the need for something more than just a random Google Doc, something that provides more information that’s more dynamic.
But then how do we get people to actually read it if they’re not reading past headlines?
Is there a historical precedent for social media “echo chambers,” or is this new?
I think it’s both. There’s this really sort of psychological communication theory called confirmation bias, and it’s the idea that people tend to seek out information that already aligns with their worldview. And so when they come across this kind of information, it affirms their beliefs and they’re happy. But when they come across information that they don’t agree with, it doesn’t actually change their beliefs — it just reaffirms the beliefs they already have. It causes them to dig in a little further.
I think that, for example, on Facebook, there’s the “red Facebook” and “blue Facebook,” and it algorithmically gives people what they want based on what it perceives their political leanings to be, kind of further fosters and intensifies that echo chamber — that tendency to kind of stay within realms of information that we already sort of agree with.
What responsibilities do algorithm-based services like Facebook and Google bear on this subject?
I think they’re simultaneously responsible and not responsible in the sense that the algorithm works based on how we behave and who we connect with. So, it’s working in the sense of it’s giving us what we want, but it may not be doing us a service.
That kind of echoes one of the biggest problems with commercial journalism and media. I’m sure you’ve heard that newspapers give the people what they want rather than what they need, and I think there’s an element of that to Facebook, just in the way that it enhances this echo chamber.
Related: Do your part to recalibrate the news cycle
I’ll also say that I understand why Facebook and Google are hesitant to manipulate or filter information because they don’t want to be accused of unfairly preventing or labeling certain kinds of media, and I worry about whether this will shut out other alternative or nonprofit points of view, so there’s a lot to consider how we technologically filter or further … figure out what people see and come into contact with.
What does it say about the layoffs in the human news curating team at Facebook?
They were trying to remove the human element because human beings are perceived to be biased for any number of reasons, but that is the way we code, the technology we create, that is the way that stuff is transferred onto the algorithm in some ways.
Without human intervention, you may see it going out of control. It’s sort of a damned if you do, damned if you don’t situation. I know we can do better. I know that Facebook and Google can do better. But what “better” means is yet to be determined.
Does this speak to social media’s new, weird role as gatekeepers of information?
People used to think about the Internet and social media in these two different ways: as sort of a walled-off garden or as very open. And so for a long time Facebook was kind of about containing information, while Google was about sharing information everywhere. You see Facebook trying to balance this maintaining privacy while also allowing information to spread rapidly, so part of this is you’re seeing greater connections between all of these social media platforms and between Google and Reddit and Imgur.
I think that’s where we’re feeling some growing pains as in managing how people can use information and identities across multiple places that interact with each other.
What do you think of this idea of “post-fact?”
Part of me, as a critical humanist, is like “what does ‘fact’ mean anyway?” … Obviously there are the laws of physics, there are things that are facts, but many things that we know are grounded in evidence and history.
Related: The Oxford Dictionaries has chosen 2016’s ‘word of the year’
The way we tell stories, the way we understand knowledge, is somewhat subjective and contextual. As a communications scholar, I realize that I may write something in an article and people will interpret that article in various ways according to their own beliefs, their own worldview, their relationship to what they’re reading, so people pick up on different aspects of a text.
So I think “post-fact” in some ways just recognizes the complexity of communication. I don’t necessarily think it means that we’re hopeless, facts do matter, but we need to think about how people communicate about these facts.
What lessons can we take away from this experience with fake and misleading news?
On the individual layer, people actually reading and thinking about what they’re going to share before they do so. Obviously, we all need to take a lot of responsibility over what we’re helping circulate in the world but I also think a lot of it is structural.
It could be these different social media sites providing tools for people to determine information about the different sources they’re sharing. But it also has to be something that traditional media organizations have to work on as well. This could be self-reflexive about what is considered newsworthy.
I don’t know if we can start reversing the fact that all of this local media barely exists anymore, so we start building relationships with communities. I’ve talked to people where they’ve gone from having multiple newspapers to zero. They had no connection to the people reporting on the world. I think disembodiment fosters distrust.
So it’s, how can people who work in media become more connected to their communities, to cover broadly in what might not always be the most profitable, but what might be the most important?
James Hoyt is a University of Kansas student and a USA TODAY College correspondent.
7 ways to spot fake news stories
By JV, Brooklyn College 6:45 pm EDT November 15, 2016
http://college.usatoday.com/2016/11/15/7-ways-to-spot-fake-news-stories/
Fake news is the news right now.
Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg released a statement on Saturday following speculation that false information on the social media platform influenced the outcome of the presidential election.
Then on Monday, both Facebook and Google announced new policies to restrict advertising revenue for phony news sources.
So a lot of people are concerned about fake news and how to keep misinformation from spreading online. Some solutions are emerging — at a recent hackathon held at Princeton University, a group of four students developed a Google Chrome browser extension to classify stories as verified or non-verified.
But even if the Internet gets better at shutting down bogus stories, it’s never going to be perfect. Here are seven easy ways to protect yourself and your timeline.cut
1. CHECK THE DATE
This happens all the time — old news stories are repackaged and reposted to generate a fresh wave of clicks, and they get spread around Facebook in a flash. Do you remember seeing your friends posting a story after Donald Trump’s election that President Obama had moved to permanently protect Planned Parenthood? The story is true, with the caveat that the rule has not yet gone into effect — but it was originally posted in September. When it resurfaced last week, it created the impression that the measure was in direct response to Trump’s election, which is not the case.
While old news may well be accurate and not actually fake, resharing it often takes it out of context, which can turn it into accidental misinformation.
So before you do anything else, check the publication date of the story, or run a quick web search of the headline to see when the event it’s about originally happened.
2. CHECK THE SOURCE AGAINST ITSELF
Maybe the story itself seems plausible (“Hillary Clinton hospitalized following a stroke”) but when you check the source’s other stories, you get things like “Area woman cures HIV through harmonica music” and “Something good happened in Florida.” That’s a dead giveaway that the source is trying out a little (fake) legitimacy to bring in (and trick) readers.
And speaking of the source …
3. LOOK CLOSELY AT THE WEBSITE
Check out the source’s site before you blindly repost. Does it look like it was designed by a kindergartner on a sugar high with a basic knowledge of HTML? Steer clear.
You should also pay attention to the domain name — sometimes it will look like a legitimate domain, but with just a few letters changed. Also look out for top-level domain extensions (com, org, edu) that you don’t recognize, and labels that are a little too on the nose; if a story about the miraculous healing power of cinnamon buns takes you to cinnamoncouncil.org, it’s probably shady.
Everyone knows The Onion, but some satirical sources (WeeklyWorldNews.com, The Borowitz Report) are less well-known. Others (DailyCurrant.com, DrudgeReport.com.co, MSNBC.co) self-protect by calling themselves satire but try to pass as legitimate.
Look for tiny disclaimers hiding in corners and copyrights. Snopes has a good list of these sites here. And on that note …
4. VERIFY WITH FACT-CHECKING SITES
Snopes is a great one. Factcheck.org and PolitiFact are others. Don’t hesitate to use them.
5. CHECK THE SOURCE AGAINST OTHER SOURCES
Let’s say your possibly legitimate story about Clinton’s stroke came from a possibly legitimate source, but you’re not sure. Check to see who else is reporting on it. If the New York Times, the Washington Post, USA TODAY, CNN or other reputable sources haven’t picked it up, chances are good it’s not valid.
Related: About the rumor that Harambe got over 10,000 votes …
And even if they have, check to see if they’ve done their own reporting; if every story links back to the same original source, it’s completely possible there will be a batch of corrections issued the next day when something turns out to be false.
6. USE REVERSE IMAGE SEARCH
For hoax sources, a legit-looking photo can be a great tool for tricking inattentive readers. Find the photo’s original source by using TinEye or Google’s reverse image search to determine if it has been misrepresented.
Also, speaking of images, this should probably go without saying, but memes are not a reliable news source.
7. BEWARE OF EXTRAVAGANCE
Clickbait is called bait for a reason — it has to be interesting enough to break the scrolling cycle and take you to a new page. This means pulling out all the psychological stops, appealing to your humor, sympathy and frustration.
Any time a story seems to be too funny, too uplifting, too terrifying or infuriating, that should trip an alarm in your head. Then follow up with your new arsenal of tricks, and it’s almost impossible to go wrong.
Jillian Vandiveer is a Brooklyn College student and a USA TODAY College digital producer.
And then there is this:
So about that viral list of fake news sites
By James Hoyt 12:14 pm EDT November 17, 2016
Melissa Zimdars, associate professor of communications at Merrimack College
http://college.usatoday.com/2016/11/17/fake-news-sites-list-melissa-zinders/
Corrections & clarifications: The following story has been updated to correct misquoted information from Professor Zimdars. A screenshot of a portion of the list of misleading websites has been replaced, to reflect the fact that Professor Zimdars took down her list, as she mentions considering doing in the interview.
Have you seen that list of fake news sites to avoid that’s been spreading like wildfire this week?
It was created by Melissa Zimdars, associate professor of communications at Merrimack College. USA TODAY College talked with Professor Zimdars to ask her about her list.
UPDATE: The list was taken offline after this interview was first published.
Note: This interview has been edited lightly and condensed for clarity.
What caused you to compile this list?
So, the list was originally just intended for my “Introduction to Mass Communication” students. We’ve been talking in the last month about journalism and newspapers and having frequent conversations about the election and media coverage, and I was concerned, at times, by some of the sources that they were citing, which is the concern I’ve had for years — and almost anyone who teaches at a college will say that that’s an increasingly important issue, especially since so many of them just Google whatever information they’re looking for.
So … I posted it to Facebook to my friends, you know, “Hey, media and communication people, if you think of other examples you come across,” and so many of them sent me Facebook messages or comments and emails and I looked through them or through some of the people sent me blogs or other sources.
So I started compiling this list, and in the process of doing so, people were asking me if they could share it with another media person they knew just in academic circles. People were like “Oh, this could be a useful teaching tool.”
One of the main impetuses besides making it public on Facebook to share with other media scholars was someone telling me when you Google popular vote counts, the first Google News item that pops up is “70news.wordpress.com” which is a fake website saying that Hillary Clinton lost the popular vote. I was like, “Oh my gosh.”
And so at that point I started adding to it more, and it just took off. It wasn’t intended to be widely distributed. It was intended to be talked about in class or to have other media and communications teachers talking about it with their students.
But not all the sites on the list consist of entirely fake stories, right?
I think it’s really important to note that on this document I created, there’s four different kinds of sources, and so a lot of the problem, and why I’m actually personally considering removing the document temporarily, is because I don’t think people are actually reading it when they’re sharing it. And I’m worried that it might be perpetuating misinformation when that’s what it’s supposed to be trying to help.
Because that list identifies some fake news sites, some that may be misleading or unreliable that do report sometimes on actual events to various degrees to truthiness.
Then there are sites that generally do okay reporting on stuff, but they rely on clickbait-style Facebook descriptions or headlines to encourage circulation, so sometimes those headlines don’t match with the articles’ content, and that can lead to misinformation.
And then the last is just satirical websites that some people take literally. The idea there is that if you’re on The Onion and really mad about what you’re reading, maybe read some more, because this is a satirical website.
Related: 7 ways to spot fake news stories
So the document was meant to cover all these different types of sites, but people are taking it as this list of “fake” sites, which is not its purpose.
How much of an influence do you think the fake sites had on voters’ perception of the election?
I think the actual fake websites undoubtedly had an influence, but there’s no way for me to determine the scope. In a lot of ways, I’m more concerned less with partisan presses — we have a long history of partisan presses serving a very important role — but rather the kinds of journalistic practices for the websites that kind of straddle the news and opinion.
And I feel that even though the conversation the last couple of days has been about fake news, I think what’s more problematic is this kind of liminal state, where there’s sort of fact and opinion and all this stuff kind of mixed together. I think that makes it harder for readers to decipher.
Do you have personal opinions of the sources on the list?
I read several of the publications listed, so I’m not trying to pass a value judgment on them. They’re on the list possibly because they rely on clickbait headlines sometimes, and so it’s important to understand if they’re coming from a particular perspective or trying to emphasize a particular point, that people need to read widely in order to create a fuller picture of whatever events they’re reading about.
Why do places like Breitbart and The Blaze (more conservative) go on the list but The Daily Kos (more liberal) doesn’t?
Trying to make it comprehensive is virtually impossible, just as a person. For example, I have an unpublished document of other suggestions I’ve gotten that is 300 sources long. And people have been emailing me saying that CNN and the New York Times and all of these publications sometimes use clickbait and they should be on there too.
So the reason that there’s sites missing right now is kind of pressing “pause” to figure out the best way to keep expanding this and to classify it, especially as it’s receiving wider views.
I think that The Daily Kos, for example, is definitely similar in terms of its journalistic practices in terms of relying on clickbait sometimes. I definitely would add that to the list, but part of me is even thinking of taking down the list entirely just for my own personal sanity.
Tell me about the MSNBC.website.
People were really mad that I “included MSNBC but not Fox News,” but the website is clearly fake MSNBC, not the real one! And so this media literacy document is demonstrating further the need for something more than just a random Google Doc, something that provides more information that’s more dynamic.
But then how do we get people to actually read it if they’re not reading past headlines?
Is there a historical precedent for social media “echo chambers,” or is this new?
I think it’s both. There’s this really sort of psychological communication theory called confirmation bias, and it’s the idea that people tend to seek out information that already aligns with their worldview. And so when they come across this kind of information, it affirms their beliefs and they’re happy. But when they come across information that they don’t agree with, it doesn’t actually change their beliefs — it just reaffirms the beliefs they already have. It causes them to dig in a little further.
I think that, for example, on Facebook, there’s the “red Facebook” and “blue Facebook,” and it algorithmically gives people what they want based on what it perceives their political leanings to be, kind of further fosters and intensifies that echo chamber — that tendency to kind of stay within realms of information that we already sort of agree with.
What responsibilities do algorithm-based services like Facebook and Google bear on this subject?
I think they’re simultaneously responsible and not responsible in the sense that the algorithm works based on how we behave and who we connect with. So, it’s working in the sense of it’s giving us what we want, but it may not be doing us a service.
That kind of echoes one of the biggest problems with commercial journalism and media. I’m sure you’ve heard that newspapers give the people what they want rather than what they need, and I think there’s an element of that to Facebook, just in the way that it enhances this echo chamber.
Related: Do your part to recalibrate the news cycle
I’ll also say that I understand why Facebook and Google are hesitant to manipulate or filter information because they don’t want to be accused of unfairly preventing or labeling certain kinds of media, and I worry about whether this will shut out other alternative or nonprofit points of view, so there’s a lot to consider how we technologically filter or further … figure out what people see and come into contact with.
What does it say about the layoffs in the human news curating team at Facebook?
They were trying to remove the human element because human beings are perceived to be biased for any number of reasons, but that is the way we code, the technology we create, that is the way that stuff is transferred onto the algorithm in some ways.
Without human intervention, you may see it going out of control. It’s sort of a damned if you do, damned if you don’t situation. I know we can do better. I know that Facebook and Google can do better. But what “better” means is yet to be determined.
Does this speak to social media’s new, weird role as gatekeepers of information?
People used to think about the Internet and social media in these two different ways: as sort of a walled-off garden or as very open. And so for a long time Facebook was kind of about containing information, while Google was about sharing information everywhere. You see Facebook trying to balance this maintaining privacy while also allowing information to spread rapidly, so part of this is you’re seeing greater connections between all of these social media platforms and between Google and Reddit and Imgur.
I think that’s where we’re feeling some growing pains as in managing how people can use information and identities across multiple places that interact with each other.
What do you think of this idea of “post-fact?”
Part of me, as a critical humanist, is like “what does ‘fact’ mean anyway?” … Obviously there are the laws of physics, there are things that are facts, but many things that we know are grounded in evidence and history.
Related: The Oxford Dictionaries has chosen 2016’s ‘word of the year’
The way we tell stories, the way we understand knowledge, is somewhat subjective and contextual. As a communications scholar, I realize that I may write something in an article and people will interpret that article in various ways according to their own beliefs, their own worldview, their relationship to what they’re reading, so people pick up on different aspects of a text.
So I think “post-fact” in some ways just recognizes the complexity of communication. I don’t necessarily think it means that we’re hopeless, facts do matter, but we need to think about how people communicate about these facts.
What lessons can we take away from this experience with fake and misleading news?
On the individual layer, people actually reading and thinking about what they’re going to share before they do so. Obviously, we all need to take a lot of responsibility over what we’re helping circulate in the world but I also think a lot of it is structural.
It could be these different social media sites providing tools for people to determine information about the different sources they’re sharing. But it also has to be something that traditional media organizations have to work on as well. This could be self-reflexive about what is considered newsworthy.
I don’t know if we can start reversing the fact that all of this local media barely exists anymore, so we start building relationships with communities. I’ve talked to people where they’ve gone from having multiple newspapers to zero. They had no connection to the people reporting on the world. I think disembodiment fosters distrust.
So it’s, how can people who work in media become more connected to their communities, to cover broadly in what might not always be the most profitable, but what might be the most important?
James Hoyt is a University of Kansas student and a USA TODAY College correspondent.
7 ways to spot fake news stories
By JV, Brooklyn College 6:45 pm EDT November 15, 2016
http://college.usatoday.com/2016/11/15/7-ways-to-spot-fake-news-stories/
Fake news is the news right now.
Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg released a statement on Saturday following speculation that false information on the social media platform influenced the outcome of the presidential election.
Then on Monday, both Facebook and Google announced new policies to restrict advertising revenue for phony news sources.
So a lot of people are concerned about fake news and how to keep misinformation from spreading online. Some solutions are emerging — at a recent hackathon held at Princeton University, a group of four students developed a Google Chrome browser extension to classify stories as verified or non-verified.
But even if the Internet gets better at shutting down bogus stories, it’s never going to be perfect. Here are seven easy ways to protect yourself and your timeline.cut
1. CHECK THE DATE
This happens all the time — old news stories are repackaged and reposted to generate a fresh wave of clicks, and they get spread around Facebook in a flash. Do you remember seeing your friends posting a story after Donald Trump’s election that President Obama had moved to permanently protect Planned Parenthood? The story is true, with the caveat that the rule has not yet gone into effect — but it was originally posted in September. When it resurfaced last week, it created the impression that the measure was in direct response to Trump’s election, which is not the case.
While old news may well be accurate and not actually fake, resharing it often takes it out of context, which can turn it into accidental misinformation.
So before you do anything else, check the publication date of the story, or run a quick web search of the headline to see when the event it’s about originally happened.
2. CHECK THE SOURCE AGAINST ITSELF
Maybe the story itself seems plausible (“Hillary Clinton hospitalized following a stroke”) but when you check the source’s other stories, you get things like “Area woman cures HIV through harmonica music” and “Something good happened in Florida.” That’s a dead giveaway that the source is trying out a little (fake) legitimacy to bring in (and trick) readers.
And speaking of the source …
3. LOOK CLOSELY AT THE WEBSITE
Check out the source’s site before you blindly repost. Does it look like it was designed by a kindergartner on a sugar high with a basic knowledge of HTML? Steer clear.
You should also pay attention to the domain name — sometimes it will look like a legitimate domain, but with just a few letters changed. Also look out for top-level domain extensions (com, org, edu) that you don’t recognize, and labels that are a little too on the nose; if a story about the miraculous healing power of cinnamon buns takes you to cinnamoncouncil.org, it’s probably shady.
Everyone knows The Onion, but some satirical sources (WeeklyWorldNews.com, The Borowitz Report) are less well-known. Others (DailyCurrant.com, DrudgeReport.com.co, MSNBC.co) self-protect by calling themselves satire but try to pass as legitimate.
Look for tiny disclaimers hiding in corners and copyrights. Snopes has a good list of these sites here. And on that note …
4. VERIFY WITH FACT-CHECKING SITES
Snopes is a great one. Factcheck.org and PolitiFact are others. Don’t hesitate to use them.
5. CHECK THE SOURCE AGAINST OTHER SOURCES
Let’s say your possibly legitimate story about Clinton’s stroke came from a possibly legitimate source, but you’re not sure. Check to see who else is reporting on it. If the New York Times, the Washington Post, USA TODAY, CNN or other reputable sources haven’t picked it up, chances are good it’s not valid.
Related: About the rumor that Harambe got over 10,000 votes …
And even if they have, check to see if they’ve done their own reporting; if every story links back to the same original source, it’s completely possible there will be a batch of corrections issued the next day when something turns out to be false.
6. USE REVERSE IMAGE SEARCH
For hoax sources, a legit-looking photo can be a great tool for tricking inattentive readers. Find the photo’s original source by using TinEye or Google’s reverse image search to determine if it has been misrepresented.
Also, speaking of images, this should probably go without saying, but memes are not a reliable news source.
7. BEWARE OF EXTRAVAGANCE
Clickbait is called bait for a reason — it has to be interesting enough to break the scrolling cycle and take you to a new page. This means pulling out all the psychological stops, appealing to your humor, sympathy and frustration.
Any time a story seems to be too funny, too uplifting, too terrifying or infuriating, that should trip an alarm in your head. Then follow up with your new arsenal of tricks, and it’s almost impossible to go wrong.
Jillian Vandiveer is a Brooklyn College student and a USA TODAY College digital producer.
