14 Fake News Signals around Articles
/CLUES AROUND THE ARTICLE
22. 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?
23. 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.
24. 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.
25. 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.
26. 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.
27. 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.
28. 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.
29. 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.
30. 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.
31. 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.
32. 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.
33. CONTENT TAGS. Some social media platforms are trying to counter misinformation by adding tags to content that has been identified as misleading.
34. 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.
35. 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.