87 Fake News Signals — Goforth Solutions, LLC

87 Fake News Signals

These practical ideas for spotting fake news comes from dozens of articles on the subject. Some are listed at the end. - Stephen Goforth (updated July 2024)

Four Kinds of News Sites

1-Quality news brands (like the BBC and The Washington Post) have earned their reputations over time as consistently reliable news sources (not perfect, but more trustworthy). Savvy readers don’t expect as much from 2-inconsistent outlets that sometimes show bias but are not “fake” (Huffington Post, Fox News). In these cases, some information may be misleading by the way an issue is framed. Then there are 3-satirical news sites (The Onion, Clickhole, and The Babylon Bee). The articles and videos are intentionally fake but intended to be funny and sometimes make a point. They aren’t designed to fool anyone. 4-Fake news sites deliberately fabricate stories. (RT News, The Globe) Packaged as legitimate journalism, these articles may mix some truth with outright lies to deceive readers or gain clicks. Fact-checkers distinguish between misinformation, where the sharer may not realize the information is fraudulent, and disinformation, where the creator/sharer knows the information is false. In each case, the motivation of the sharer can be different.

Google searches for “Fake News” since 2014

The Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics encourages journalists to “seek truth and report” and “be accountable and transparent” while doing it. Looking for these qualities is an effective way to separate the fake and the real.

What Fake News is NOT

Some people will mislabel rumors, hoaxes, and real news stories they don’t like as “fake news.” Another area of confusion is stories that result from mistaken or bad journalism.

Sometimes well-respected news organizations get it wrong: sources can lie, documents can be faked, and reporters can mishear quotes. Sometimes new information changes the basic understanding of what is known publicly. You wouldn’t call this fake news since the motivation for posting the original (but mistaken) information wasn’t to deceive. What can make the situation worse: is the financial pressure of shifting away from legacy media (like newspapers) into the digital world, leaving the news industry scrambling to figure out how to support quality journalism financially.

Between the pressure to meet social media engagement quotas and competition with other publications, writers often don’t get the necessary time to craft thoughtful and nuanced stories—or possess the power to reject an assignment over concerns about amplification.

Inaccurate details, such as reporting that four people are dead in a plane crash instead of six, can result from an honest mistake. The wrong number might have been heard or written down.

During breaking news, information will quickly shift as bits trickle into news organizations. It takes time to get a clear overall picture of what’s happening. Sometimes law enforcement officials or public relations professionals get the story wrong and send inaccurate information. At those times, news organizations are simply repeating mistakes. This is most likely to happen when only one source of information available whenever a story breaks.

Legitimate news sources will report the truth—as best they know it at the time. But as new information comes in, the story can shift. Just like with scientific research, this meandering pathway is just part of the process of getting to the truth.

It’s worth noting that the approach of legacy news organizations (The Washington Post, CNN) differs from new media outlets (BuzzFeed News, Politico). Traditional outlets aim at objectivity or neutral-voice reporting, where the focus is on being balanced, keeping the journalist’s opinions out of reports. More recently launched news sites are likely to focus on immediacy and transparency over neutrality and update readers whenever more information is known. Each approach presents different weaknesses for reporters to overcome. Of course, commentators may reference news information but are not acting as neutral reporters. Opinion pieces are often confused with basic news reporting. Pay attention whether you are reading a news report, an editorial, a guest blogger, a review, a disguised ad, or a comment.

The bottom line: be skeptical and bring a critical mind with you to everything you read. Keep in mind that “fake news” can be about something else besides the truth. As University of Southern California media scholar Mike Ananny has said, it is often “a struggle between [how] different people envision what kind of world that they want.”

Here are some tips for determining if a story is likely reliable. An organization does not need to tick off all these qualifiers in order to be considered authentic and accurate, but the more you see red flags pop up, the more a healthy skepticism is in order.

You’ll notice these are “tips” and not a checklist. Checklists can oversimply the nuances of discernment into black-and-white boxes.

CLUES FROM THE WRITING

1. ORIGINAL REPORTING. Does this article cite sources likely to know this information? Does the news organization have reporters attending news conferences in person, working in cities where the news is happening, and talking to key sources directly? Or does the organization have to rely on second-hand information from other sites?

2. LONE-WOLF REPORTING. Compare the information with other sites you trust. Are these sites reporting the same information? The site might have a scoop, but a lack of multiple independent accounts means it is more likely that the story is false. Sometimes lack of coverage is the result from writer and producer bias within a company or the result of the particular focus of the outlet (which may include not offending certain sponsors or other companies owned by the same parent company). Typically, you should expect more than one source reporting on an important topic or event. Plus, it’s always best to read multiple sources of information to get various viewpoints and media frames.

3. AP STYLE. Most legitimate news organizations will use the AP Stylebook as a writing guide (no Oxford comma, full name on the first reference and only last name thereafter, etc.). Some organizations have developed their own style guides (New York Times, Wall Street Journal, etc.). Most news organizations use an in-house style guide (to deal with writing issues unique to the publication’s area of reporting).

4. POOR GRAMMAR. When a writer makes obvious grammatical mistakes, they also may not have taken the time to ensure the article’s facts are accurate.

5. ADJECTIVES & ADVERBS. Objective journalism avoids adjectives and adverbs. The more of them used in an article, the more you should question whether the writer’s goal is to inform you or to convince you of something.

6. BALANCE. Did the writer engage with anyone who disagreed with the gist of the article? Quality news organizations are looking for both sides—and sometimes, there are more sides than that.

7. EXPERTS. Does the article quote not only more than one side in a dispute but experts as well? A he-said-she-said story without experts’ opinions in the field is weak reporting. When there’s only a single source for a news article, be hesitant to accept the information without further corroboration.

8. OBJECTIVE. Like the scientist aiming to discover the truth, having some bias does not mean a journalist cannot arrive at the truth through a tested and effective approach (as does the scientific method, despite the researcher’s bias). The complaint that “no one can really be objective” misses the point that it’s not the journalists themselves but the articles that need to be neutral. While bias websites can still post real news, carefully look at the specific evidence, they offer and see if reporting from other legit sites backs it up.

9. OPINION. Is the article part of an opinion section? Does the video feature a commentator? Commentary has a long history of having a part inside the pages of newspapers, but many readers confuse an editorial article with news reporting. The same can happen online or on TV news. There’s no need for an opinion piece to be neutral in its presentation. Just don’t confuse it with an unbiased news piece.

10. GENERIC ENEMIES. Does the article focus on vague foes who are never specified? “The media,” “supporters of (insert name of politician),” “The right,” “The left,” “Washington,” etc. Good reporting doesn't make these kinds of generalizations.

11. DOXING. Doxing is making private information public in order to hurt a person or organization. If the writer suggests anything like doxing, run the other way.

12. EMBEDDED LINKS. Quality journalism values clarity over style. Links in the article to original source material show a commitment to transparency and allow readers to make up their own minds about its use. Sometimes bogus stories will cite official or official-sounding sources and even link back to them that do not back up the claims in the article. An article without links or quotes from identified sources should be suspect.

13. SPONSORED CONTENT. Some legit news organizations publish articles similar to what they usually publish as real news—only, in this case, an advertiser actually sponsors the material. The intention could be to provide legitimate information about a subject while at the same time promoting the advertiser's product. Sometimes referred to as native advertising, reputable publishers will identify the article as “sponsored content” or “paid partner content” in a prominent location. A precursor to sponsored content was advertorials—a combination of advertising and editorial opinion. These placements were ads disguised as editorial content.

14. LOCAL REPORTING. If the story involved a particular locale, was local expertise included? Was the reporting conducted on the scene?

15. YOUR REACTION. Be sensitive to occasions when you become angry as you read an article. If you are outraged after reading something, the story may be written to manipulate your emotions. The more shocking and outrageous, the more work is necessary to confirm the information before passing it along.

16. PARTISAN APPEAL. If a story sounds big but appears only on hyperpartisan sites and seems designed for outrage, it could have significant flaws that stopped legitimate news outlets from covering it.

17. FIRSTHAND SOURCES. Use an article’s information to work back to original sources to verify what’s in the article. If the report references a lawsuit, it can often be found online through a Google search or third party like Scribd, CourtListener, or DocumentCloud. Or, if the article references something a company is doing, check that company’s website (or a government agency) to see if there is a news release about that topic or an announcement on a site like PR Newswire.

18. MULTIPLE SOURCES. Use keywords from the article (unique terms such as someone’s name) that are likely to bring up the same topic from another source using Google News search. The information from each story can be compared. It is unusual for a single outlet to have exclusive information, especially after several days have passed since the article was posted. To avoid generic, unhelpful search results, use unique keywords in your search—like the name of an unfamous person who’s quoted in the story.

19. TANTALIZING QUOTES. Search for a questionable quote by pasting the text (in quotation marks) into a search engine. If the exact phrasing doesn’t come up or if only a few small outlets have printed the outrageous quote (perhaps from a famous person or politician), then be skeptical about its authenticity. Look for the sentences before and after the quote that makes your blood boil. If the article fails to give them, that could be a warning sign. If the quote is taken out of context, the site (or writer) belongs on your naughty list.

20. SOCIAL MOVEMENTS. A social movement or political uproar can be manufactured artificially. Look for evidence that the people behind a petition or boycott are real people and the effort is organic. Social media posts shouldn’t come from obscure users or bots. There’s a difference between a few snarky tweets and an actual public outcry.

21. THE WRITERS CREDENTIALS. Does the writer possess specialized knowledge in an area, either advanced education or experience covering a particular beat? This is especially important for opinion pieces. A list of qualifications in a writer’s bio should inform the audience as to their expertise. If they are not knowledgeable about the topic, they rely on other sources. An article without quotes or information from experts raises red flags, especially if creators present themselves as experts when they’re actually enthusiasts.

22. ODD WORDING. AI-created text lacks the ability to write in a way that sounds natural—for now. When word choices or sentence structures are odd, it could be the product of a computer. The same is true with repeatedly using the same words and phrases or writing that lacks emotion. These are signs of machine-generated text.

OpenAI’s GPT-2 Detector is a tool that help to identify whether text is likely AI generated. While AI writing tools are not useful for reliable scientific texts without strong human intervention, it is likely predatory journals will exploit the quick production of scientific articles to generate low-quality content.

23.IMPROBABLE PRECISION. It’s a red flag when someone claims, "I drove from Chicago to Miami in 1.5847 hours." That kind of precision is unlikely.

CLUES AROUND THE ARTICLE

24. OUTRAGE HEADLINES. Fake news outlets have found stories that make the reader angry can generate more shares. The use of ALL CAPS or numerous exclamation points is a red flag. If the headline is compelling, then read the entire story, not just the headline. Does the story deliver what the headline promises?

25. HYPERBOLIC HEADLINES. Hyperbolic headlines claiming you’ll “never believe” the article’s epic content suggest you shouldn’t click. If the headline promises to tell you something the "media doesn't want you to know," as if you are being given secrets to an inside story, be skeptical.

26. AUTHOR ATTRIBUTION. Lack of author attribution can mean the news story is suspect. Some respected sites, such as The Economist, don’t typically identify their writers, but that’s an exception to the rule. Nearly all quality news outlets will identify the writer(s) of each article.

27. AUTHOR CREDENTIALS. Look for other articles by the same author by Googling the person’s name. Have they produced legitimate writing for legitimate news outlets? Their credentials and backgrounds are a guide to the quality of work they are likely to produce as well as the quality of the news outlet you are considering. Suppose the story is about a specialized area, such as health or science. In that case, it’s a bonus if the author regularly writes about the subject because the person is also likely to possess basic knowledge of that particular area.

28. SUPPORTING PHOTOS. Do accompanying photos visually back up the story’s claims? Do the images even relate to the headline and content? If a site uses lots of stock photos rather than original images related to the story, that’s a red flag—perhaps that the reporters are not professional, but it could indicate more serious problems.

29. ODD PHOTOS. Are photos cropped oddly or taken from some strange angle? Does it appear the photographer was deliberately trying to avoid showing something in the shot? Legit news organizations avoid picking unflattering photos that might bias the reader unless that’s part of the story. This goes for distorted images as well, taken very close to a subject to emphasize someone’s age or physical characteristics. When a site shows a politician or celebrity’s face contorted or just plain goofy in a photo, it’s a subtle attempt to affirm your negative impression of that person and cue you that the article will fit your bias.

30. MANIPULATED IMAGES. Sometime real images are cropped to give viewers a misleading impression. One way to check a photo is to use Google Reverse Image Search. Paste in the image link or upload the photo. This should give you information on where else the image has been posted so you can compare for manipulation. This will also show if there is mislabeling, and the photo has been repurposed from another event or time. Other free reverse image search engines include TinEye and RevEye. Another way to check graphics is to match the image against Google Street View or satellite imagery of the location. Consider details like vehicles and weather for consistency.

31. MISLEADING GRAPHS. Look closely at any charts related to an article. Using plot points that misinterpret data can skew the results displayed in the image. The axis should always have labels and the value should start at zero. A pie chart should not add up to more than 100%. Trends over significant spans of time are more meaningful than isolated events.

32. GRAPH INFORMATION. Legitimate news sites will include the source of information from which infographics are built. A graphic that does not include a data source is a major red flag; the information is either false or the organization fails to maintain ethical and professional practices. The source of the data can be checked for more information on the topic. There better be a good reason to see a three-dimensional chart. They are seldom needed.

33. BAIT & SWITCH. Does the headline match the article? Many compelling headlines don't. Reliable websites respect readers by avoiding discrepancies between the headline and the story. Teases designed to trick readers into clicking are a sure sign of a disreputable organization. Reputable sites deliver on the headline’s promise and do not frustrate readers by holding back information in the headline.

34. MEDICAL STUDIES. If the article is based on a new study, the “gold standard” are double-blind peer-reviewed studies. Double-blind studies mean that neither the researchers nor the subjects know who is getting the real medicine or a placebo. If the study is a preprint, it has not been peer-reviewed. If the study was conducted on animals, it does not necessarily mean the findings will apply to humans. Beware of studies from so-called “predatory journals.” These publications do not peer-review manuscripts they publish, and they charge authors a fee to publish.

35. CONTENT TAGS. Some social media platforms are trying to counter misinformation by adding tags to content that has been identified as misleading.

36. EDITED VIDEO. If video accompanies an article, look for multiple edits and odd cuts. Amateurs with basic software can easily create cheap fakes by making edits that slow down video, speed it up, cut it into snippets, insert or remove details, or present it in a false context.

37. FAKE VIDEO. The development of “deep fakes”—videos created using artificial intelligence is making it more difficult to identify manipulated images. Technology can swap faces, clone voices and synchronize lips to a different audio track than the original. A screenshot from a questionable video placed in Google Reverse Image Search might show if there history of manipulation for the image and thus the video as well. Look for visual cues that suggest the video is manipulated, such as distortions, odd movements, and syncing issues between the voice and the facial movements.

CLUES FROM THE WEBSITE ADDRESS

38. DOT-GOV. Does the site have a dot-gov address? Generally, data provided by government organizations are more trustworthy. Official news agencies are often the starting place for establishing the truth of a matter.

39. DOT-EDU. Does the site have a dot-edu address? Generally, data provided by university research laboratories are reliable.

40. LO & DOT-CO. Websites ending with odd letters like “lo” (such as “Newslo”) or “.co” could be a red flag for fake news sites. For instance, abcnews.com.co is not the actual URL (web address) for the real ABC News. What looks like an .edu domain, followed by .co or “lo” is likely a fake or deceptive site. Sites like Clone Zone make this easy to do.

41. COM.COM. Another way to trick readers is to add a “com” so the web address almost looks right. For instance, “USATodaycom.com.”

42. PERSONAL BLOGS. A domain such as “.wordpress” or “blogger” usually signifies it’s a personal blog rather than a news source.

43. COUNTRY-CODE TOP-LEVEL DOMAINS. The end of some website addresses is a clue to the site’s originating country. For instance, “dot-au” means the site is based in Australia, and “dot-ng” means the site is based in Nigeria. Suppose you find a supposed article about your community on a website coming from a country far away. In that case, it probably means the writer isn’t likely to have access to the necessary sources to write a competent story.

44. ODD NAMES. Odd domain names generally equal odd and rarely truthful news.

CLUES FROM THE SITE

45. ABOUT US. Check the site’s “About” page for information about who is behind the operation. If you aren’t familiar with the name, look for information about who owns it. For instance, the Russian government owns the RT network. There is a big difference between state media (RT) and public media in a democracy (like the BBC). If a website does not provide information on its mission, staff members, or physical location, it is most likely unreliable. The language used here should be straightforward. If it seems overblown, be skeptical.

46. ADDRESSES. There should be a mailing address (better yet, a physical address) and an email address. Any site concerned about making factual corrections (and avoiding defamation) needs a way for readers to contact them.

47. LEGAL NOTICES. Look for a legal section on the website. It may be called a “disclaimer.” Satirical websites sometimes disclose this information in those sections. A site without obvious legal notices (such as EEOC or FCC public file information for TV stations) is a red flag.

48. GOOGLE “FAKE.” Put the website name in quotes and then add “fake.” Something indicating the site is known for publishing fake news might come up.

49. DATES. Look for a date to make sure the event is recent. Sometimes real stories from several years ago are posted as if they were new. This happens with photos as well. Reliable news outlets want readers to know when the information is posted and will usually display the headline's date. If you are looking at an article on social media, go to the article and look first for a timestamp. Even an old article with good information at the time of publication can be problematic because a study (for instance) may have since been retracted.

50. WEB DESIGN. Poor web design is a red flag. Is the design out of date when compared to other reputable sites? Is the display navigable and professional?

51. DOWNLOADS. If the website contains advertisements, particularly pop-up ads, asking you to download software, it is likely to be an unreliable.

52. CORRECTIONS. Does the site make corrections as it receives new information, and does it make those corrections obvious? Typically, a note will be added to the top or bottom of a news article when even a factual change is made to a story. In a print or broadcast story, the original error should be clearly stated along with the correct information. The editorial process of a legitimate news organization catches and corrects many errors. If you don’t see corrections from time-to-time on a website, that’s a red flag. Corrections and updates are a part of journalism.

53. OTHER ARTICLES. Search for the information you know to be false in other articles on the site. Does the site offer quality information on different topics besides the one you are investigating?

54. COMMUNITY POSTS. Some sites allow individuals to post pieces under the banner of the news brand (ex: BuzzFeed Community Posts, Kinja blogs, Forbes blogs). The site editors typically do not vet these posts, making the material suspect.

55. PREVIOUS FAKE NEWS. Do Wikipedia, Snopes, or other such sites show the website in question as having a connection to spreading false information in the past? While Wikipedia is generally pointed in the right direction but can contain some questionable information, the links to other sites it provides can be invaluable in the hunt for the truth.

56. EMBARGOS. Does the publisher respect embargos? This is common practice in media, where information suppliers ask publishers to hold back new information until a certain time. It is considered common courtesy and accepted practice to honor embargos except in unusual circumstances. Ignoring these expectations could be a sign the publisher is more interested in rushing out material than operating by industry standards.

CLUES FROM THE PUBLISHER

57. REPUTATION. Is the writer’s reputation at stake if they are wrong? Does the organization risk losing reputation or losing finances if it becomes known for having promoted false news?

58. RELIABILITY. Has the organization been reliable in the past? Have you read other information from the organization confirmed to be accurate?

59. AMATEURISH. Data collected by an amateur is more error-prone than data collected by a professional scientist. Does a quick web search confirm whether the people who collected and organized the data have a good track record of collecting and distributing data?

60. RESPONSE TO CRITICS. Does the publisher respond publicly to its critics when there are reasonable questions? Does it acknowledge when the critics have a point?

61. DATA SOURCES. Look closely at the sources of data the publisher uses: is this material provided by for-profit companies, partisan organizations, or advocacy groups? While the material may be accurate, data from groups with agendas require greater scrutiny than data from nonpartisan organizations.

62. PAYING THE WRITERS. Content Farms (or Content Mills, if you like) pay very little in return for lots of writing. When news writers are focused on cranking out material to feed the beast, the quality of the work suffers. If you discover a site is considered a Content Farm by professionals or pays writers very little for their work, that’s a big red flag.

63. DIVERSE VOICES. Does the news organization offer diverse perspectives in its articles? A professional outlet will make a concerted effort to give voice to various ethnicities and political persuasions. The more a newsroom focuses on a single viewpoint, the greater the likelihood it will leave out significant perspectives from its news converge.

64. FEEDBACK. Reputable news publishers want readers’ feedback on stories for accuracy and look for help in determining coverage priorities.

65. AGREEMENT. Do you find yourself agreeing with everything your preferred news outlet says? If so, something is wrong. Find a commentator whose politics don’t match with your own—vary your media consumption to get a balance of perspectives.

66. EASY STORIES. Suppose a news outlet overlooks stories worth telling in favor of the stories that can be easily told. In that case, it may not have the resources to dive into investigative reporting or may not have the goal of getting beyond the low-hanging fruit.

67. ANONYMOUS SOURCES. Legitimate news outlets will only reference unnamed sources that would endanger them physically or put them in legal jeopardy. Overreliance on anonymous sources should be a red flag to be skeptical of the information, even if it comes from an otherwise trustworthy site.

68. FRAMEWORK. Some sites have a framework for all their stories (like the College Fix, which is focused on college campus outrage). Articles on these sites may leave out moderating information, so stories lean toward the framework.

CLUES FROM OUTSIDE THE SITE

69. YOUR COMMUNITY. There’s no substitute for knowing people who are well-informed and will let you know when you’ve posted something questionable. These are people you can ask when you have your doubts. Don’t know any experts or researchers, or information junkies from various fields who are critical and helpful? Make some new friends! Developing such a support system is critical for navigating effectively through life. Read some books written by experts.

70. FACT-CHECKING SITES. Does a fact-checking site identify the assertion of the article as a hoax? Check one of the sites listed at the end of this article or type the article’s topic into a search engine and add “hoax” or “fake.”

71. THE OTHER SIDE. Take time to check sites that do not agree with your politics. If you discover they are wrong and perhaps not addressing the best arguments of your side, it is a confirmation you are on the right side of an issue. Or maybe you will discover a weakness in your own reasoning you haven’t considered. Either way, you'll know what other people are consuming, sharpening your thinking.

72. GOOGLING THE TOPIC. If you do a Google search for a topic, remember that reliable researchers do not write material answering questions like “Did the Holocaust exist?” Instead of decent sources, this type of search will bring up conspiracy theorists. Don’t be misled by a search that frames issues as secret plots and nefarious schemes.

CLUES THAT AI WROTE THE ARTICLE

73. OVERUSED WORDS. AI-written articles tend to come back to the same terms multiple times. Examples would be comprehensive, delve, meticulous, versatile and pivotal. Before 2024, overused AI words in scientific research papers were typically nouns. More recently, researchers say AI excessively uses "style" words—mostly verbs and some adjectives.

74. TORTURED ACRONYMS. Generative AI will sometimes pick up the wrong words for an acronym. For instance, a data science paper might use "CNN" to refer to "convolutional brain organization" instead of "convolutional neural network.”

75. NONSENSICAL PARAPHRASES. An academic paper written by AI might have “glucose bigotry” instead of “glucose intolerance,” where it changed a single word and did not recognize the context.

76. ACADEMIC CITATIONS. AI-written articles with academic citations have been known to include incorrect or incomplete references.

77. STYLE CHANGES. A sudden change in writing style within an article or essay may indicate that the author’s work was rewritten using AI.

78. PERFECT GRAMMAR. A typo, particularly in student writing, could indicate the article or essay is not wholly the work of a bot. Mistake-free writing is, ironically, a red flag. However, savvy writing prompts may ask the AI to include some errors in order to mislead inspectors.

80. MECHANICAL STYLING. AI tends to mechanically repeat expressions that appear often in the internet material that it was trained on. The result is often uninspired and generic prose that often lacks any specific point.

CLUES THAT AN IMAGE OR VIDEO WAS MADE WITH AI

81. THE BACKGROUND. Are people in the background looking at the unusual thing going on? If they are going about their business, it is likely a fake. Often, the background of AI images will be distorted.

82. OTHER VIDEOS & PHOTOS. If the video or image is of a news event and there are no other videos or images showing different angles, it may be AI-generated. It is unlikely that there would be only a single image or video of something odd or newsworthy.

83. DETAILS. AI generators are not good at details—like fingers, hands and hair. Many times, AI software will show too many fingers or odd hand placement.

84. WRITING. Look closely at writing on a sticker, street sign or billboard. Watch for blurry writing when it shouldn’t be or wrongly formed letters, or the letters that don’t spell words.

85. GLOSSY. The overly glossy look, similar to some stock photos, can be an AI giveaway. Watch for people with plastic-looking faces.

86. THE SOURCE. Is the person or organization sharing the image reliable and not known for promoting AI-generated media?

87. THE EYES. By using methods conventionally used to "measure the shapes of galaxies," researchers have found that deepfake images don't have the same consistency in reflections across both eyes. However, this method of detection does have false positives and false negatives.

KNOW YOUR WEAKNESSES

These biases are broad tendencies rather than fixed traits or universal behavioral laws. Everyone does not uniformly share them. Plus, multiple influences result in a given behavior. Agents of fake news try to take advantage of these natural biases.

1. FALSE MEMORIES. Studies have shown we are susceptible to false memories. We selectively remember our own experiences, much less historical and cultural events. Planting fake memories has become easier these days with AI-enhanced photo and video forgeries on the internet.

2. CONFIRMATION BIAS. We tend to seek information that confirms what we already believe to be true. Ask yourself: Do I want to believe this report, not because it is well-sourced and reported, but because it fits with what I already believe? One study found about one in ten US adults are willing to accept anything that sounds plausible and fits their preconceptions about the heroes and villains in politics.

3. CORRELATION VS CAUSATION. Just because events or statistics have a connection doesn’t mean you can assume one causes the other.

4. WE OVERVALUE NARRATIVE. Adding a story to a fact increases the likelihood that people will believe it—even when the story narrows the likelihood of it being true. We like tidy stories, not ambiguity.

5. FOOLED BY RANDOMNESS. Humans tend to read meaning into the unexpected and the improbable, even where there is none.

6. OVERSIMPLIFICATION. To avoid conflict and uncomfortable thinking, we oversimplify to reduce tension. Soon, one side looks good, and the other is dismissed as evil.

7. SUNK COST FALLACY. We hang on to a course of action or idea when we have invested in it, even when circumstances and reasoning show we should abandon it.

8. GOOGLE SEARCH RELIANCE. Google is not neutral. When you Google something, the algorithm isn’t weighing facts but other factors, such as your search history. Google tailors your results to what you want—or what the search engine “thinks” you want. Because of this personalization, you are probably getting different results than the person sitting next to you. Be critical of search engines as you are critical of the media. Don’t assume the first link or the first page that comes up when you Google something is the best answer to your question.

9. AVAILABILITY BIAS. This shortcut for making quick decisions gives your memories and experiences more credence than they deserve, making it hard to accept new ideas and theories.

Know Your Fact-Checking Sites

Most fact-checking sites give out-sized space to political issues. This misses a deal of quality journalism published in other areas (health, environment, religion, etc.). Also, a complaint leveled at fact-checkers is that they will sometimes fall into “selection bias”—the tendency to pick apart stories promoting views with which they disagree.

Fact-Checker News Literacy Project

FactCheck.org Politifact

Hoaxy Reuters Fact Check

Irumor Mill Snopes

Media Bias Fact Check SourceWatch

MetaBunk Truth or Fiction

Washington Post Fact Checker

Tools for Spotting Fake News:

Ad Fontes Media - Producer of The Media Bias Chart® which rates media sources in terms of political bias and reliability.

Bellingcat - Investigative search network for citizen journalists using open-source information such as videos, maps and pictures.

Botcheck - Suggests whether an X/Twitter account is likely to be a bot.

Botometer - Chhecks the activity of an X/Twitter account and gives it a score based on how likely the account is to be a bot.

ChatGPT Detector - Developed by the ChatGPT team to determine the likelihood that text was produced using GPT technology.

Database Search Engine - Domain, name and keyword searches across more than 1300 databases (subscription required).

Deepfake-o-Meter - Check images, video and audio to see if they are fake. Free but requires signup.

FactCheck Explorer - Filter and analyze date from the Google Fact Check Explorer.

Facterbot - This Facebook Messenger chatbot aimed at delivering fact checks.

Google Reverse Image Search - Check the history of a photo: When it was first used and where.

Hoaxy - Visualizes the spread of articles across social media.

InVID Verification Plugin

Islegitsite - Check if a website is legit or a scam.

MapChecking – A tool that makes crowd size estimates (protests, rallies). This video explains how it works.

NewsBot - This Facebook Messenger app identifies the political leaning of an article.

NewsGuard - Steven Brill’s site that uses trained journalists to rate news items and information sites. Produces an email newsletter that tracks misinformation.

Phone Validator - Use this database to detect robo-call and spam numbers.

RevEye - A Chrome reverse image search engine add-on.

Sensity - This tool is designed to spot fake human faces in pictures and videos. Engineers say they trained detectors using 100s of thousands of deepfake videos and GAN-generated images. Free.

TinEye - A reverse image search engine to help determine when an image first appeared on the internet. A free extension for Chrome and Firefox browsers.

Trust Project - A Microsoft project providing indicators of reliable, ethical journalism.

WatchFramebyFrame - Fact-check videos by looking frame by frame for out of place shadows and such

Sources/Explore more

6 Tips for Identifying Fake News, Sabrina Stierwalt, Quick & Dirty Tips

6 tips to help you detect fake science news, Marc Zimmer, The Conversation

As Fake News Spreads Lies, More Readers Shrug at the Truth, Sabrina Tavernise, New York Times

Beware partisan ‘pink slime’ sites that pose as local news, Margaret Sullivan

The Breaking News Consumer's Handbook, WNYC Studios

‘Cheap fakes’: Viral videos keep clipping Biden’s words out of context, Bill McCarthy, Politifact

The Conspiracy Theory Handbook, Stephan Lewandowsky John Cook

Critics of Dan Rather’s tips about fake news brought up his past. But the points are still solid, Alex Horton, Washington Post

The Fact Checker’s guide to manipulated video, Washington Post