This article was originally published in 2019 and updated in 2024
by Terrell Heick
1. In the article, title or social share, “who” says “what”? That is, which specific author and publication is making what type of claim about what topic or ideas?
2. Is what is stated or claimed a fact or an opinion?
3. Does this title seem true? (This is especially critical for “fact-based” headlines.) If so, by what standards? Who would disagree with this and why? How can we verify the facts? Does the author use the “gray areas” of “truth” in a way that seems designed to stir up emotion, sow doubt, influence thinking, or change readers’ opinions?
4. Is this headline entirely “true”/accurate or based on partially true information/data? Misleading information is often based on partial truths, then reframed to meet a particular objective: to provoke an emotion such as anger or fear which leads to some outcome: a “like”, a donation, a purchase, registration, voting, etc.
5. Are there any logical fallacies embedded in the title itself – particularly straw arguments, emotional appeals, or loaded language intended to polarize, rally, or “engage” readers?
6. Is the topic the title is based on important? Is it worth understanding more deeply?
7. Who would this appear to benefit if accepted as “true”?
8. Is this information, angle, or “take” new or something that has already been said (and either verified or debunked)?
9. Is the data (fact-based) or position (opinion-based) inherent in the title shared by other credible publishers or does it contrast with the “status quo”? If the latter, how does this affect the title?
10. What background information would I need to assess its credibility? Where can I get more information about the headline’s topics to better assess its credibility? What do I have to gain or lose if I accept this as true?
11. Does the “report” accurately represent the “big picture” or is it something “selected” (in or out of context) designed to provoke an emotional response in the reader?
For the second set of questions aimed at thinking critically about news headlines, we turn to the News Literacy Project, a media standards project that has created a series of questions to help students think critically in the news headlines.
12. Evaluate your emotional response. Is it strong? Are you angry? Do you intensely hope that the information turns out to be true or false?
13. Think about how you experienced this. Was it promoted on a website? Did it appear in a social media feed? Was it sent to you by someone you know?
14. Consider the headline or message:
A. Does he use excessive punctuation or CAPITALS for emphasis?
b. Is it claiming to hold a secret or tell you something that “the media” doesn’t want you to know?
c. Don’t stop at the title. Keep exploring!
15. Is this information designed for easy sharing, like a meme?
16. Consider the source of information:
A. Is this a known source?
b. Is there a byline (the name of an author) attached to this article? Does this author have specific expertise or experience?
c. Go to the “About” section of the website. Does the site describe itself as a “fantasy news” or “satirical news” site? What else do you notice – or what do you not notice?
17. Does the example you are evaluating have a date?
18. Does the example cite various sources, including official and expert sources? Does the information in this example appear in (other) media reports?
19. Does the example refer to other quality sources?
20. Can you confirm, using a reverse image search, that all the images in your example are authentic (i.e. they have not been modified or taken from another context)?
21. If you looked up this example on a fact-checking site such as snopes.com, factcheck.org, or politifact.com, is there a fact check that qualifies it as less than true?
Remember:
- It’s easy to clone an existing website and create fake tweets to fool people
- AI and deep fakes are becoming more and more common
- Bots are active on social media and are designed to dominate conversations and spread propaganda.
- Propaganda and/or disinformation often uses a real image from an unrelated event.
- Debunk examples of misinformation every time you see them. It’s good for democracy!
You can download the full checkology pdf here and find more resources at checkology.org
