Skip to Main Content

Researching: Evaluate Sources, incl. the news

Fact Check

Read Laterally

Evaluate by reading laterally vs. reading vertically graphic

Check Yourself with Lateral Reading

More Crash Course video at NAVIGATING DIGITAL INFORMATION

Web Literacy for Student Fact-Checkers / by Mike Caulfield

Web Literacy for Student Fact-Checkers, an open (OER) PRESSBOOKS book / by Mike Caulfield, 2017.

Introduces the Four Moves, 1) Check for previous work, 2) Go upstream to the source, 3) Read laterally, and 4) Circle back. Sends the reader to updates of the book, too, like SIFT and CTRL-F.

 

Evaluate Sources with ACT UP

ACT UP

to

Evaluate Sources

ACT UP grapic goes to Dawn at Broward. The other link goes to the guide at Salem State University Library

 

A - author. Who wrote the resource? Who are they? Background information matters.

C - currency. When was this resource written? When was it published? Does this resource fit into the currency of your topic?

T - truth. How accurate is this information? Can you verify any of the claims in other sources? Are there typos and spelling mistakes?

U - unbiased. Is the information presented to sway the audience to a particular point of view? Resources unless otherwise stated should be impartial.

P - privilege. Check the privilege of the author(s). Are they the only folks who might write or publish on this topic? Who is missing in this conversation? Critically evaluate the subject terms associated with each resource you found. How are they described? What are the inherent biases?

CAFE Advice

CAFE Advice

To be informed cultural producers of information (as opposed to being cultural consumers), we need to think critically about the resources we are using and citing in our projects. We have a social responsibility to others who might be looking to us for information. We all have a responsibility to fact-check sources before we retweet or repost so that those that follow us are reading accurate and reliable information.

CAFE Advice is...

Challenge information and demand accountability. Stand right up to the information and ask questions. Who says so? Why do they say so? Why was this information created? Why should I believe it? Why should I trust this source? How is it known to be true? Is it the whole truth? Is the argument reasonable? Who supports it?

Adapt your skepticism and requirements for quality to fit the importance of the information and what is being claimed. Require more credibility and evidence for stronger claims. You are right to be a little skeptical of dramatic information or information that conflicts with commonly accepted ideas. The new information may be true, but you should require a robust amount of evidence from highly credible sources.

File new information in your mind rather than immediately believing or disbelieving it. Avoid premature closure. Do not jump to a conclusion or come to a decision too quickly. It is fine simply to remember that someone claims XYZ to be the case. You need not worry about believing or disbelieving the claim right away. Wait until more information comes in, you have time to think about the issue, and you gain more general knowledge.

To be informed cultural producers of information (as opposed to being cultural consumers), we need to think critically about the resources we are using and citing in our projects. We have a social responsibility to others who might be looking to us for information. We all have a responsibility to fact-check sources before we retweet or repost so that those that follow us are reading accurate and reliable information.

Evaluating Journal Articles

Is it peer reviewed?

Why are scholarly research articles peer-reviewed?  To check for,

original material
clear writing
appropriate study methods
valid data
reasonable conclusions (and the data supports the conclusions)

Get an overview of different types of articles on the Popular vs. Scholarly page of this Research Guide. Learn more about peer review at Science Direct.

Evaluate with the CRAAP Test

Evaluating Information - Applying the CRAAP Test by Sarah Blakeslee, Meriam Library, California State University, Chico, 2010. To critically evaluate your sources for:

     Currency
     Relevance
     Authority
     Accuracy
     Purpose

 

UPDATE: Evaluate with SIFT (The Four Moves) instead. Go to Introducing SIFT, a Four Moves Acronym, a Short History of CRAAP, and The CRAAP Test and Whiteness, Emotion and Bias for more info.

 

More about SIFT on our Evaluating Online Sources guide

Evaluating Online Sources Research Guide

Information for how to SIFT instead of CRAAP,
(S)TOP
(I)nvestigate the Source
(F)ind better coverage
(T)race claims, quotes, and media back to the original context

Factitious Game 2020, Pandemic Edition

factitious pandemic edition graphic

how to play image

The Media Manipulation Casebook

The Media Manipulation Casebook

News Quality Chart

Always think about the sources of the news you are looking at.  Sources near the top are your best bet.  Bias is not in itself a problem as long as the source uses good news practices.  

undefined

Fall 2020 Featured Website

 

Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Three-part series looking into the future of the European Union’s (EU) disinformation policy.

FUTURE THREATS, FUTURE SOLUTIONS | #1
The EU’s Role in Fighting Disinformation: Taking Back the Initiative / James Pamment

FUTURE THREATS, FUTURE SOLUTIONS | #2
The EU’s Role in Fighting Disinformation: Crafting A Disinformation Framework / James Pamment

FUTURE THREATS, FUTURE SOLUTIONS | #3
The EU’s Role in the Fight Against Disinformation: Developing Policy Interventions for the 2020s / James Pamment

Carnegie_Endowment-for-International_Peace-logo

 

Fall 2020 Featured Articles

Summer 2020 Washington Post The Fact Checker Channel on YouTube

Spring 2020 UN tackles 'infodemic' of misinformation

Films on Demand: How to Recognize Fake News

Reference Shelf: Alternative Facts, Post-Truth and the Information War

Definitions for reading, watching, listening to and writing about the news.

Terminology to add to the list, includes:
byline - a line giving the name of the writer of an article in a newspaper or magazine.

Truth, truthiness, triangulation: A news literacy toolkit for a “post-truth” world

Evaluating "News" Sources

False, Misleading, Clickbait-y, and Satirical “News” Sources


1. F
ake, false, or regularly misleading websites are often shared on social media, including Facebook. Some of these websites may rely on “outrage” by using distorted headlines and decontextualized or dubious information in order to generate likes, shares, and profits.

2. Some websites circulate misleading and/or potentially unreliable information, or present opinion pieces as news.

3. Other websites use hyperbolic or clickbait-y headlines and/or social media descriptions, but may otherwise circulate reliable and/or verifiable information.

4. Other sources purposefully fake with the intent of satire/comedy, which can offer important critical commentary on politics and society, but have the potential to be shared as actual/literal news, for example, The Onion.

Tips for analyzing news sources:

● Avoid websites that end in “lo” ex: Newslo. These sites take pieces of accurate information and then packaging that information with other false or misleading “facts” (sometimes for the purposes of satire or comedy).

● Watch out for websites that end in “.com.co” as they are often fake versions of real news sources

● Watch out if known/reputable news sites are not also reporting on the story. Sometimes lack of coverage is the result of corporate media bias and other factors, but there should typically be more than one source reporting on a topic or event.

● Odd domain names generally equal odd and rarely truthful news.

● Lack of author attribution may, but not always, signify that the news story is suspect and requires verification.

● Some news organizations are also letting bloggers post under the banner of particular news brands; however, many of these posts do not go through the same editing process. (This includes Forbes blogs, for example.)

● Check the “About Us” tab on websites or look up the website on Snopes or Wikipedia for more information about the source.

● Bad web design and use of ALL CAPS can also be a sign that the source you’re looking at should be verified and/or read in conjunction with other sources.

● If the story makes you REALLY ANGRY it’s probably a good idea to keep reading about the topic via other sources to make sure the story you read wasn’t purposefully trying to make you angry (with potentially misleading or false information) in order to generate shares and ad revenue.

● If the website you’re reading encourages you to DOX individuals (to reveal the private information of others, i.e., cell phone number, email address, etc.), it’s unlikely to be a legitimate source of news.

● It’s always best to read multiple sources of information to get a variety of viewpoints and media frames. Some sources, such as The Daily Kos, The Huffington Post, and Fox News, vacillate between providing important, legitimate, problematic, and/or hyperbolic news coverage, requiring readers and viewers to verify and contextualize information with other sources.

 

Adapted from: 

© 2016  by Melissa Zimdars. The work 'False, Misleading, Clickbait-y, and Satirical “News” Sourcesavailable under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
 

Melissa Zimdars, Assistant Professor of Communication, Department of Communication and Media, Merrimack College, North Andover, MA

How to Choose Your News

First Draft News

Columbia Journalism Review | 6 Types of Misinformation

Calling Bullshit: In the Age of Big Data

The News Literacy Project and... how to know what to believe

 Chat with a librarian