Information Sources Authenticity Checklist By Ulrike Lahaise, Georgia State University – Perimeter College, October 2019, edited December 2019

Our Internet and Social Media Based Information Society The public learns about any issues affecting them not only from conversations with friends,

family, and colleagues, but most of all from the internet, news media, social media, TV, YouTube, etc.

Keeping in mind that friends, family, and colleagues, etc. are also getting their information from the

same in-animate sources as everyone else, any information a person receives other than directly

through their own senses (and even then, think of optical illusions, for example) is subject to

manipulation by powerful individuals with personal, mostly hidden agendas or any kind of special

interest groups with their not always entirely published agendas connected to big stake holders in the

struggle for money and power. These big players are not limited to local companies, ideological

movements, or political influencers but can be national or even international because of the intricate

socio-economic global interdependency of most countries. In other words, foreign individuals,

companies, or even governments have an economic or political stake in what’s going on in other

countries and will use any modern method and technology available to them to interfere in the affairs of

other countries as unhindered as possible.

The bottom line is that we cannot trust any information we receive from anywhere to be true,

un-biased, and entirely fact or evidence based. Unfortunately, real and hard sciences are not entirely

immune to socio-economic-political influences because they depend on outside funding for which they

have to compete with each other. The funding sources are, of course without publicly stating so,

controlled by the socio-economic-political powers who are usually more committed to their own bottom

line than the purity of the scientific process. Since these national, international, private, or political

power players with their own, hidden agendas use any available methods at their disposal to remain

undetected and untraceable, we have to develop and apply as many tools as possible to identify in-

authentic, disingenuous, secretly manipulative, aka fake information regardless of the apparent source

which is not always identical with the original source. Consequently, in addition to being able to

evaluate and distinguish between scientific and pseudo/non-scientific claims, we also need to be able to

identify characteristics of information and their apparent sources indicating whether or not they are

authentic or fake.

Essentially, every country on Earth where the internet and social media have become the major

sources of information and communication is experiencing the same general problems with the massive,

disingenuous spread of fake information and manipulative communication. That’s why efforts to

develop criteria to identify this deception have sprung up not only in the United States but also in other

countries since about the early 2010’s when the reach and power of internet and wireless

communication driven social media and news platforms exploded globally. Even though these efforts

occurred independently of each other, there are a number of definitions, criteria, and procedures they

all have in common. Since they have been developed independently by different entities in different

countries, this increases their objectivity, authenticity, sincerity, and credibility. In the following pages,

the descriptor of “fake” is defined as “in-authentic, disingenuous, incorrect, falsely claimed to be factual

and evidence-based when in reality the supposed facts and evidence are themselves fake or fabricated”.

We can apply the following definitions, criteria, and procedures to verify any information from

any source claiming that their information is factual and evidence based. This process may not give us a

fool-proof way to tell fake from fact but it will yield a lot of relevant, factual background information and

context which allows us to make a more reality based, well informed decision for ourselves. In the end,

the decisions we make in our lives come from our world view which we build from all the information

and experiences that we encounter every day so we want to make sure that we have the most authentic

information possible and we are as independent as possible from being unwittingly manipulated by

other people.

Information Sources Authenticity Checklist (ISAC) Note: All items in the checklist table below are explained in detail following the table. While

working through the checklist with any article, posting, or claim, be aware of your own biases. The most

common ones are: 1) Confirmation bias: the desire to believe or disbelieve in something distorts our interpretations and leads us to seek evidence to confirm our bias while to ignore evidence that disproves it; 2) Bias blind spot: the unawareness of our own bias which makes biased conclusions appear objective and impartial to us.

As a rule of thumb: the greater your emotional reaction to an article, the more urgent the need to account for any underlying biases. Here are a couple of simple ways to minimize the effect of biases when getting information from any source: 1) look for a variety of sources reporting about the issue of interest that are independent from each other; 2) Compare your own interpretations with those of sufficiently impartial experts.

The checklist items are phrased as statements that are true for criteria applying to fake news/bad information. The higher the score in each category alone and the total score, the larger the probability that the article/social media post is fake news/bad information. Due to space considerations, some words in the table below were severely abbreviated.

Limitations of the Fact-Checking Process

Even with best practices in journalism and with the most sincere intent of becoming an educated, responsible, fair minded reader, it is difficult to avoid any and all biases, because the general world view and attitudes of the writer and reader are unavoidably reflected in the way the text was written and the way in which it is received.

• Full objectivity and impartiality in this kind of exploratory work is difficult to achieve – just as it is difficult in the simple act of opinion-forming.

• Detecting a bias can be really difficult and is often open to interpretation. A common way in which a bias can be present in news reporting is the wording through little emotional nuances and connotative exploitation.

• Let the facts and evidence guide you. Notice how the evidence eventually favors one conclusion, or how reality remains ambiguous in spite of the evidence. This shows how facts are independent of opinions and intuitions.

ISAC Worksheet

Information/Claim Analysis

x if true, - if not, n/a if not applicable: Rating

1 Path a paid/spons. content

b 2+ steps away from src.

2 Fact a fact-chk. sites: low rat.

b not match expert sites

c no citat. of expert src.

3 Media X-ref a emot. > other reports

4 Timing a no or old original date

b inacc. b/c late breaking

5 Biases* a very pos./neg. lang. *be aware of b one-sided opinions your own

Qualitative Info Analysis

Outcome (select from list below)

Info/Claim x Out of 10

Website x Out of 19

Total x Out of 29

Website Analysis

x if true, - if not, n/a if not applicable: Rating

1 Domain a personal/blog

b odd title/dom. name

c URL with “lo” or “.co”

2 About Us a bad google/wiki rev

b no/bad author cred.

c author is a blogger

d private/obscure email

e has disclaimer/satire

f no “about” section

3 Sources a no or sketchy hyperlinks

b inauthentic quotes

c no or low quality srcs.

d rev. search: bad img/vid

4 Writing a all caps, spell. errors

b hyperb., emot. lang.

5 Layout a bad optical web design

b bad functional design

6 Social Media a provoc. clickbait lang.

b title/content mismatch

Possible Fact Checking Outcomes 1) The claim is TRUE: true in the context it was made with sources to support it. This is

limited to the specific context because the claim can still be untrue in another context. 2) The claim is FALSE: source material and the expert statements conflict with each other.

This outcome is limited because the fact checking process cannot establish the claim as either a deliberate lie or simply a careless slip.

3) The claim is neither completely false nor completely true, it is 50/50: claim includes factual information which is not completely accurate, i.e. over-simplified views, ambiguous, conflicting source material. Rather than half true/half false, the claim is not entirely verifiable because the supporting information is not certain.

4) The claim simply cannot be checked or the verification wouldn’t be meaningful for public debate = N/A: The background for these claims and their themes will be summarized, but in such a way as not to give too much coverage for misinformation or even disinformation within the claim, its explanatory system, or supporting sources.

Information/Claim Analysis – Detailed Explanation of Criteria 1. Consider the path: how you reached the article or information or how it reaches you

could indicate a lower quality, less professional content or biased reporting with a specific purpose other than publishing objective facts.

a. It could be paid, sponsored content designed to look like the legitimate content produced by the media outlet (aka native advertising).

b. Estimate how many steps of processing you (the reader) are removed from the original source of information that the claim is based on. The more steps the information passes through, the higher are the chances that it is degraded or distorted by the time it reaches you.

2. Consult fact-checking sites and do due diligence (optional in-depth fact checking steps are posted as a last item):

a. Verify the information in question on several legitimate fact checking sites (snopes.com, politifact.com, factcheck.org, hoax-slayer, etc.) to see whether or not they flag the information as less than truthful.

b. Cross-reference the information with official and expert sources that have editing practices and motives adhering to high professional and ethical standards (government pages, peer reviewed professional publications, relevant professional organization, relevant pre-eminent educational institutions). Also useful but of slightly lower quality are reputable news media sources reporting on relevant official and expert information. They must directly cite original official and expert level sources in a format that allows for easy tracing.

c. Verify any sources that are cited in the article. A legitimate news article should cite a variety of sources including official and expert sources with editing practice and motives that adhere to high professional and ethical standards.

d. (Optional In depth fact-check of claim: Make sure you don’t settle for “good enough” information and follow the tendency of people to let time limitations keep them from searching for optimal information. Consider the following steps when fact-checking informational claims in the article.

i. Paraphrase the claim to reduce it to a true/false statement which is factually verifiable. Since this cannot be done for: questions, wishes, conjecture, suggestions, personal interpretations, speculations about the future, etc., these are not considered facts to begin with.

ii. Compare the claim to official, public, and reliable expert sources relevant to the field, i.e. open official and legal sources, officially and impartially prepared statistics, scientific research and experts working in research institutes. Ideally, in addition to written expert sources contact at least two experts personally not only for fact checking but also to account for potential biases of the experts.

iii. Verify what sources, if any, are cited in support of the information in question. A legitimate news article should cite a variety of sources including official and expert sources with an editing practice and motives that adhere to high professional and ethical standards (ex.: see IFCN Code of Principles in Appendix below.).)

3. Cross-reference multiple news sources: look for the information to appear in several other news sources. Always read multiple sources of information for a variety of viewpoints.

a. Some sources are known to mix legitimate, important news coverage with hyperbolic, opinion centered coverage (ex.: The Daily Kos, The Huffington Post, Fox News). For the least biased, most objective representation of events and topics, verify and contextualize information with other sources. Sometimes, though, a legitimate current event or topic encounters media bias where a lot of news sources choose not to report on it.

4. Verify timeliness: Some sources repost old or irrelevant news stories to attract users with emotionally charged, sensational headlines and images for clickbait, click-throughs, and directing traffic to them and their sponsors/advertisers. Other sources report on breaking news about events that occurred just minutes ago. The initial reports are based on partial and incomplete information. Be aware that other news sources may jump in on the same braking story (aka herding phenomenon).

a. These sources may not post a current date. b. For breaking news, check back repeatedly to follow how the story develops to

get a fuller picture. c. (Optional item: More and more journalists might pick up the story, imitating the

angle the initial story rather than using their own approach.) 5. Account for biases: Media biases are possible in the article of the claim as well as your

own (see Note above checklist table). a. The writing style of the article is dominated by very positive or very negative

language. The media source itself tends to publish positive or negative news about some topics or viewpoints more often than others.

b. The article is intended to influence the opinions and feelings of the reader through manipulation in that the news story may deviate from the principles of neutral and objective reporting or cover preferred topics and viewpoints more often (one-sided).

Website Analysis – Detailed Explanation of Criteria 1. Title/Domain:

a. A domain containing “wordpress” or “blogger” signifies a personal source b. Verify odd domain names because sites with odd domain names are more likely

to contain distorted, misrepresented news. c. Slight variations of well-known websites ending in “lo” may re-package bits of

accurate information with false or misleading “facts”. They could fall into “satirical”/”fantasy” category whether or not their “about” page specifies that. Slight variations of well-known websites ending in “.com.co” where “.co” is a domain for Colombia. These sites are often fake versions of real sites, unless deeper research indicates they are original sources from that country.

2. “About”/”About Us”:

a. Google every title/domain name listed in the “About Us” section to find any previous reports on this website by snopes.com, politifact.com, factcheck.org, etc., or if there’s a Wikipedia entry detailing its background. This helps identifying lesser known and/or new legitimate websites, such as satirical sources or websites that are explicit about their political orientation.

b. Look for information about the credentials and backgrounds of affiliated writers, editors, publishers, and domain owners.

c. The author may be a blogger rather than a professional journalist. Some reputable news organizations let bloggers post articles that don’t go through the same editing process (ex: BuzzFeed Community Posts, Kinja blogs, Forbes blogs)

d. The email address listed under “Contact Us” is personal (Yahoo, Gmail, etc.) and not based on web domain of source.

e. Look for a “Legal” or “Disclaimer” section. Many satirical websites disclose this information in those sections.

f. If there is no “About Us”,”Contact Us” or not even a byline with the name and affiliation of the author, or any other type of identifying information, the website may not be a legitimate source of information.

3. Sources: a. Test the hyperlinks contained on the website as to whether or not they link to

legitimate and relevant studies or sources. Illegitimate websites have hyperlinks that have been altered or taken from another context, and do not link to quality studies or sources.

b. Verify any details, facts, quotes for authenticity with multiple sources (media literacy experts call this triangulation).

c. Verify that a variety of sources are cited including official and expert sources with professional editing practices and high ethical standards. Any legitimate authors will do so.

d. Reverse search of images shows they have been altered or taken from another context (How to reverse search images (youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=99&v=XRqiuFt-paQ&feature=emb_title ): Google's reverse image search is a breeze on a desktop computer. Go to images.google.com, click the camera icon, and either paste in the URL for an image you've seen online, upload an image from your hard drive, or drag an image from another window. https://www.pcmag.com/article/338339/how-to-do-a-reverse-image-search-from-your-phone .)

4. Writing Style: a. Look for frequent use of ALL CAPS, excessive punctuation, spelling/grammar

errors, and/or simply bad design in headlines and/or body text. b. Words or statements in the headline or body such as “WOW!, SLAUGHTER!,

DESTROY!?” or “secret the media doesn’t want you to know” is a stylistic practice involving hyperbolic word choices that are intentionally used to create emotional responses with readers. Publications adhering to high journalistic, traditional standards usually avoid this intentionally emotion inducing style.

c. (Optional: Look for the style guide or editorial standards the website follows, ex: AP Style Guide. Absence of a style guide may indicate poor editing/fact-checking.)

5. Layout Style: Many fake and questionable news websites use overall bad web design that ignores the widely accepted standards of universal design and accessibility rules for clear, consistent, and efficient web page layout and navigation on a variety of platforms with a variety of assistive technologies in mind.

a. Bad visual layout: for example screens are cluttered with text, digital images are heavily photo-shopped or entirely fake, cluttered with sponsored content/ads, excess of distracting/animated style elements, clashing/mismatched font styles/colors/sizes, etc.

b. Bad navigational functionality: for example links are not working, most of the text is contained in images rather than plain text, getting to vital links involves too may clicks, navigational buttons don’t work, etc.

6. Social Media Analysis: a. Look up the website on Facebook/Instagram/Twitter/Snapchat, etc. Posts with

sensational or provocative language/images (aka “clickbait”) are intended to attract attention and lots of clicks/shares/likes from users.

b. Verify whether or not the headlines and social media descriptions match or accurately reflect the content of the linked article which is often a sign of misleading news sources even if they are not fake.

The bottom line: Our assessment of the authenticity, reputability, and quality of any source and its content is crucial to understanding of whether or not the information we are viewing is factual and evidence based. Recent attempts by government agencies and social media platforms to control fake news and bad information in cyberspace and social media are not 100% effective. Their level of success in stopping fake news and bad information depends strongly on the people who are in charge of that effort. That’s why we are the ultimate gate keeper of the information we internalize. It is up to us to make sure that what we accept as facts and evidence is in reality what it claims to be. We can only form an accurate worldview that enables our success in life when we have accurate information of facts and evidence. The worldview we create for ourselves is up to us but the reality of nature given by facts and evidence is not.

APPENDIX: Background Information Please note: The definitions and terms introduced in Part I are meant to introduce you to the underlying

concepts that are generally used when this context is examined. None of these will be on any graded

work for this class.

Definitions of Types of Fake Information • Misinformation = defective, “mistakes”

o Spread without any deliberate or harmful intentions, based on misconceptions.

• Disinformation = deceptive, “hoaxes”

o Deliberate fabrication aimed to damage, harm or mislead public debate or to

sow discord between people

• Malinformation = damaging, “gossip”

o Using true information with malicious intent or for a deliberately damaging purpose,

such as manipulating or twisting the context or the interpretative framework.

Categories of Fake News Websites

• Category 1: Fake, false, or regularly misleading websites that are shared on Facebook and social media. 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.

• Category 2: Websites that may circulate misleading and/or potentially unreliable information.

• Category 3: Websites that sometimes use clickbait-y headlines and social media descriptions.

• Category 4: Satire/comedy sites, which can offer important critical commentary on politics and society, but have the potential to be shared as actual/literal news.

According to media professor Melissa Zimdars of Merrimack College, no single topic falls under a single category - for example, false or misleading science news may be entirely fabricated (Category 1), may intentionally misinterpret facts or misrepresent data (Category 2), may be accurate or partially accurate but use an alarmist title to get your attention (Category 3) or may be a critique on modern media practices (Category 4).

International Fact Checking Network Code of Principles The International Fact Checking Network (IFCN) will certify news sources that apply for

membership and demonstrate sustained adherence to this Code of Principles.

1. Nonpartisanship and Fairness: use same standard/process for every fact check. Let the

evidence dictate the conclusions. Don’t take positions on the issues that are fact-checked.

2. Transparency of Sources: readers must be able to verify the findings of a news article

themselves. All sources must be provided in enough detail for the reader to replicate,

except when a source’s personal security could be threatened.

3. Transparency of Funding & Organization: all funding sources must be revealed, and the

news organization must ensure that funders have no influence over the fact-checking

and conclusion drawing process. The professional background of all key employees, the

organizational structure, and legal status must be explained. A clear way for readers to

contact the organization must be included.

4. Transparency of Methodology: The methodology used to select, research, write, edit,

publish, and correct their fact checks must be explained. Readers must be encouraged

to send in claims for fact-checking. An explanation of the how and why of fact-checking

must be included.

5. Open & Honest Corrections Policy: the policy on corrections must be published and closely

followed. Corrections must be published in the best possible way to ensure that readers

see them.

Bibliography FactBar EDU. Version 1.0 (adapted from Finnish), ISBN: ISBN 978-952-69148-0-0. 2018 FactBar EDU, this work is

licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International, https://faktabaari.fi/in-english/

The News Literacy Project: https://get.checkology.org/

International Fact Checking Network: https://ifcncodeofprinciples.poynter.org/

School Library Journal: http://blogs.slj.com/neverendingsearch/2016/11/26/truth-truthiness-triangulation-and-

the-librarian-way-a-news-literacy-toolkit-for-a-post-truth-world/

Digital Resource Center: http://drc.centerfornewsliteracy.org/

“List of False, Misleading, Clickbait-y, and/or Satirical “News” Sources”:

http://theduran.com/updated-list-of-false-misleading-clickbait-y-andor-satirical-news-sources/

“4 Tips for Spotting a Fake News Story” by Christina Nagler: https://www.summer.harvard.edu/inside-summer/4-

tips-spotting-fake-news-story

How to spot Fake News: https://www.ifla.org/publications/node/11174

For an in depth, how-to interactive guide on fact-checking (Benedictine University Library): https://researchguides.ben.edu/fake-news Royal Society Open Science Journal: Fake science and the knowledge crisis: ignorance can be fatal:

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rsos.190161 Science News for Students: Studies test ways to slow the spread of fake news https://www.sciencenewsforstudents.org/article/studies-test-ways-slow-spread-fake-news Bad News fake news inoculation game: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-019-0279-9 direct link to Bad News game: https://getbadnews.com/#intro https://instr.iastate.libguides.com/webeval Proceedings of the National Academy of Science Article on “Science, Audiences, Misinformation, and Fake News”: https://www.pnas.org/content/116/16/7662 Fake News, Bad Science Teaching Materials: https://libguides.southernct.edu/c.php?g=660590&p=4671186 Tutorials on how to apply authenticity type evaluation tools (ASAP W3 W5): http://libraryguides.library.clark.edu/c.php?g=481992&p=3296137

https://callingbullshit.org/syllabus.html#Fake Calling BS Syllabus and Course Materials, INFO 270 / BIOL 270. University of Washington https://www.popsci.com/story/health/disinformation-health-pandemic-coronavirus-conspiracy/ Popular Science: how disinformation about the coronavirus spreads faster than the virus and how this disinformation campaign leads to serious consequence.