Exercise: checking sources in practice

Source criticism is only learned by doing. Work through the following tasks and only afterwards compare your answers with the solutions.

Part A: Which step of the SIFT method?

Match each action to the right SIFT step (Stop, Investigate the source, Find better coverage, Trace back to the original).

1. You open a new tab and search the name of the website together with „criticism“.
2. A post makes you angry, and you take a breath first instead of sharing immediately.
3. You check whether reputable newspapers carry the same report.
4. You click on „a study shows …“ and look for the study itself.

Part B: Spotting warning signs

Which warning signs do you notice in this find?

On the site „latest-health-news24.info“, with no author named, it says: „SENSATION: Doctors HATE this one simple trick! The pharmaceutical industry doesn't want you to find this out.“ Date: none. References: none. At the bottom of the page, lots of buttons to buy a dietary supplement.

Part C: Applying SIFT

You see a dramatic photo of a flood with the caption „Flooding TODAY in our town!“. In three or four sentences, describe how you would proceed using SIFT.

Part D: Classifying

Classify each as misinformation, disinformation or malinformation:

1. A user innocently shares an old false report that they believe to be current.
2. A campaign deliberately invents a story in order to harm a (female) politician.
3. Someone publishes genuine but private chat messages in order to harm a person.

---

Solutions

Part A

1. I, Investigate the source. Checking a source's reputation via other sources is lateral reading.
2. S, Stop. Pausing instead of reacting on reflex.
3. F, Find better coverage. Looking for independent confirmation.
4. T, Trace. Tracing the claim back to the original source.

Part B

Warning signs:

• No author, no legal notice: responsibility is obscured.
• Sensationalist language in capitals („SENSATION“, „HATE“): appeals to emotion instead of reason.
• Conspiracy tone („the pharmaceutical industry doesn't want …“): immunises against counter-arguments.
• No date: currency cannot be checked.
• No references: a claim without evidence.
• Intent to sell at the bottom of the page: the benefit question Cui bono is answered immediately: something is meant to be sold here.

Conclusion: practically every criterion from the chapter Evaluating sources raises the alarm.

Part C

A good approach:

• Stop: don't share immediately, even though it is dramatic.
• Investigate: who posted this, a local outlet or an anonymous account?
• Find: do local newspapers, authorities or broadcasters report a flood here today? If not, scepticism is warranted.
• Trace: reverse image search: does the photo perhaps come from another place or from years ago? (Very common with disaster images.)

Part D

1. Misinformation: false, but without intent to harm (shared innocently).
2. Disinformation: false and with intent to harm.
3. Malinformation: true, but deliberately used to harm.

Made it?

If you automatically thought of the reverse image search in Part C, you are already at the level of practised fact-checkers. It is precisely this reflex, back to the original, that sets them apart from amateurs.