Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

MineralMan

(146,192 posts)
Tue May 21, 2013, 11:00 AM May 2013

Fact Checking - If the site you're looking at doesn't do it, and many don't,

you can do it yourself. If you find some amazing site that has amazing information, check this site out to find out how to determine whether the info you found is worth re-posting on DU. The tips in the article are really good ones, and can help you weed out the factual websites from the, well, nonfactual ones:

http://blog.kaspersky.com/fact-checking/

Are you reading the truth or a pack of lies on social networks? Learn to tell the difference with this quick guide.

From the poor mutts in dog homes that are about to close, to the Statue of Liberty at the center of a tsunami – you’ve no doubt seen these sorts of messages on social networks and been suitably shocked or awed by them. You may even have clicked Like, Retweet or Share. What these viral messages have in common is that they create such an impression that they are often shared further without any serious thought being given to them. And that’s a pity, because in most cases the events have either finished (that dog home closed ages ago), or didn’t even happen (the Statue of Liberty is still standing). Convincing text as well as the use of Photoshop can make it difficult to distinguish the truth from the lies; it now entails some key skills familiar to a modern journalist – the ability to check facts.
5 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Fact Checking - If the site you're looking at doesn't do it, and many don't, (Original Post) MineralMan May 2013 OP
The tips in the post are good ones, but they're MineralMan May 2013 #1
Thanks - I bookmarked it. The Velveteen Ocelot May 2013 #2
That's a good tip, too, although Snopes only gets around to MineralMan May 2013 #4
Fact checking is pretty loose in some places, and it may not matter. Buzz Clik May 2013 #3
Those are good comments, I think. MineralMan May 2013 #5

MineralMan

(146,192 posts)
1. The tips in the post are good ones, but they're
Tue May 21, 2013, 11:13 AM
May 2013

not the only way to check. For example, a recent post on DU linked to a source where there was a related article that declared that Roundup was the same herbicide chemical as one used in the infamous Agent Orange. The techniques in the tip above wouldn't work for that article, since the headline wasn't where the statement occurred.

The statement sounded wrong to me for some reason, but I wasn't sure, so I searched for Roundup and then for Agent Orange. Both searches found Wikipedia articles as the first search result. Wikipedia is a useful tool when it comes to factual information about things like chemical compositions of products, so I checked both. Sure enough, it was clear that glyphosate, the primary ingredient in Roundup, was not in Agent Orange.

The article was incorrect in its initial premise, and so could be easily discarded as a source. If no fact checking was used for that basic piece of information, it was not used anywhere in the article. To verify what the rest of the article said would require extensive fact checking on my part, so I simply disregarded the entire article and pointed out the discrepancy in the thread at the link below:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022871833

As it happens, the source of that incorrect article is one that is sometimes used as a source of articles posted on DU. Because I discovered that no fact checking is apparently used at that source, it is not one I trust for any article. In fact, I don't think it should be used as a source on DU at all. That's not my call, though, so I'll simply ignore any further posts that originate at that source, treating the source as suspect on truthful reporting.

The Velveteen Ocelot

(115,276 posts)
2. Thanks - I bookmarked it.
Tue May 21, 2013, 11:15 AM
May 2013

Another source I use is Snopes - they are pretty good at ferreting out urban legends.

It really is irritating to see stuff posted on DU as if it were true when the content itself should cause at least a raised eyebrow. We see "headlines" regarding some outrageous story that turns out to be from one of the lamer satire sites like The Daily Currant (it's easier to identify pieces from The Onion because those are usually funny). These stories will be about some appallingly awful thing one of our most unfavorite conservatives is alleged to have said or done, and of course confirmation bias kicks in and everybody's all OMG, isn't that terrible; of course Ann Coulter (or Rush Limbaugh, or Michele Bachmann, etc.) would have said or done that disgusting thing, and the thread gets to 50 outraged comments before somebody finally says, hey, everybody, wait a second, it's satire. Then we go all Emily Litella: Oh. Never mind.

So if you read something (probably a link from a friend of a friend) that seems to be kinda crazy, fact-check it. Look at Google or Snopes, at least. If the only source you can find is The Daily Currant, don't post it as factual, no matter how much you want to believe it.

MineralMan

(146,192 posts)
4. That's a good tip, too, although Snopes only gets around to
Tue May 21, 2013, 11:20 AM
May 2013

things that get widely posted on the Internet. For satirical posts, or suspected satirical posts, going to the original source usually lets you know that the source specializes in satire.

I sometimes post satire on DU, written by myself. When I do, I always link to a non-existent website URL that clearly is not real. I also signal the satire within the post by using comical source names or other clues. Still, those posts are sometimes taken seriously by a few casual readers. But all satire fools some people. If it did not, it wouldn't be very good satire at all.

 

Buzz Clik

(38,437 posts)
3. Fact checking is pretty loose in some places, and it may not matter.
Tue May 21, 2013, 11:16 AM
May 2013
Social media: Facebook is filled with lies and liars, so fact checking anything found there is a herculean task. Twitter ... most tweets are just nonsense and should be treated as something you might overhear in a bathroom.

Discussion boards: The standards are raised, but my expectations are still pretty low. Whether it's DU or a discussion board associated with specific topic, I am skeptical and always check sources. We can get some good info from DU and other boards, so it's worth the effort.

Blogs: Most blogs are just opinions, so I don't expect much objectivity. I do, however, expect documentation.

News media: These better be solid.

I'm somewhat tangential in my comments, MineralMan, and I apologize. Your OP was interesting.

MineralMan

(146,192 posts)
5. Those are good comments, I think.
Tue May 21, 2013, 11:23 AM
May 2013

You're right, too. Most stuff posted second or third-hand should be investigated by the reader before forwarding. If the orginal source is not linked to in the material, it's doubly suspect. Always go to the original source, which may or may not be reliable.

Another tip:

Advocacy Websites - rarely good sources for accurate information. Anything found on them should be followed back to the original source before accepting it as factual.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Fact Checking - If the si...