The news gets louder every year. Or so it seems. Politics and world events as entertainment feels productive; we can indulge our humor, our pride, our outrage while ostensibly learning about what\u2019s going on. An educational angle with an emotional hook keeps us coming back to certain outlets to read more \u2014 but that\u2019s where it gets complicated. At best, we gain new information. At worst, we further entrench ourselves into opinions and narratives rather than facts.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
With new information arising from the upcoming elections, finding unbiased information is more important than ever. Because we want to navigate the world as truthfully as we can, we\u2019ve created a guide to thoughtfully fact-checking media, from finding neutral sources to checking our biases.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
To stay up to date (and to learn more about other topics you enjoy, like sports or finance), you can head here for our favorite email newsletters<\/span><\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n When you read breaking news, sift through the story to find out who initially reported the news. Look for phrases like \u201caccording to,\u201d and \u201coriginally reported by\u201d so you can find the source. (What\u2019s most ideal is to see when multiple credible sources are breaking the same story based on a variety of trustworthy reports).<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cPolitical rhetoric and persuasive speech is designed to convince you, not always to educate you \u2014 which is why fact-checking is essential.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n Next, watch unedited coverage rather than curated clips so that you get the whole story. You can review transcripts of pivotal political speeches here<\/span><\/a>, or even try attending events in-person at a local level. This cuts out the media \u2014 and their spin \u2014 in the middle. Because, when it comes to election-related news, it\u2019ll be the candidate, not the news outlet, who will be working for you.<\/p>\n\n\n\n But you can\u2019t always take every leader or spokesperson at their word. Political rhetoric and persuasive speech is designed to convince you, not always to educate you \u2014 so next, get to fact-checking.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Whether you\u2019re reviewing facts from a speech or information you\u2019ve read or seen in videos online, Factcheck.org<\/span><\/a>, Reuters<\/span><\/a>, and Politifact<\/span><\/a> are reputable fact-checking sites. You can even cross reference the sites with one another. And if you\u2019re using the information to make a decision or plan on sharing it with others, it\u2019s especially important to verify it\u2019s true \u2014 even when you agree with something you\u2019ve read or seen.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cIf you\u2019re using the information to make a decision or plan on sharing it with others, it\u2019s especially important to verify it\u2019s true \u2014 even when you agree with something you\u2019ve read or seen.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n If you\u2019re fact-checking through other sites not listed above, check for transparency about donors and stakeholders, potential parent company bias, and non-partisan leanings to ensure objectivity.<\/p>\n\n\n\n If you still find yourself unsure about claims, head to neutral and highly reliable sites. The Adfontes Media Bias<\/span><\/a> chart outlines the reliability and factual accuracy of political media sources. Allsides<\/span><\/a> offers a comprehensive left-right-center look at media bias, as does the app Ground News<\/span><\/a> (we especially love how easy it is to swipe between different headlines for the same story). For $4.95 a month, you can also subscribe to Newsguard<\/span><\/a>, a browser extension that gives outlets \u201cnutritional labels\u201d so you can identify websites that make false claims or lack transparency.<\/p>\n\n\n\n *Factcheck.org and Politifact have received donations from Facebook, which does not have input on the fact-checking, but is still something worth noting. Adfontes recieved funding from Aion Ventures and the New Community Transformation Fund, while Allsides operates on a hybrid revenue model so no one source of funding can be influential. Ground News is run by personal donations and subscription costs.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n Now that you have the factual backing for stories you\u2019re reading and hearing, it\u2019s important to understand that although these stories may be based<\/em> on facts, at the end of the day, they\u2019re stories. They\u2019re designed to entertain, convince, infuriate, or evoke fear. Be extra observant of inflammatory or misleading headlines \u2014 this is how media outlets can interject opinion and partisan preference without the consumer\u2019s full knowledge.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cBe observant of inflammatory or misleading headlines \u2014 this is how media outlets can interject opinion and partisan preference without the consumer\u2019s full knowledge.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n Start by looking at the language, and asking yourself if it\u2019s meant to evoke an emotional response. Be wary of outlets that use highly inflammatory language, such as \u201cthe end of ___\u201d or emotional appeals like \u201c___ is our only hope.\u201d Return to facts and research when you read euphemisms, exaggerations, or other unfounded claims. And of course, question these headlines and rhetoric even when it\u2019s a story you want to agree with.<\/p>\n\n\n\n One useful question we can ask ourselves when reading a piece of content is, \u201cwho wins with this story?\u201d You might find that a specific politician wins, or the news organization itself wins by convincing you to come back for more. If the information presented feels emotionally manipulative or leaves you feeling more angry than informed, it might be a good time to revisit those fact-checking sites or find a secondary source. (But don\u2019t turn away just because a news story scares you \u2014 we do have to sit with uncomfortable truths sometimes!)<\/p>\n\n\n\n Don\u2019t forget to question how frequently a media outlet covers a specific story, too; over-covering or under-covering a topic can be done intentionally to amplify or quiet a story to someone else\u2019s benefit. <\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n Finally \u2014 there is space here for connecting with opinions from people you trust. To find reliable voices, research authors and journalists across their social platforms and bylines. Do you find their tone helpful and feel comfortable with who they follow, repost, etc. on social media? Are their past professional experiences likely to skew their perspective? Check their work on those fact-checking sites mentioned above. Are they reporting objective information as opposed to content that\u2019s emotionally exhausting, enraging, or needlessly sugar-coated?<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cYou can and should disagree with the media personalities you trust; they have their own unique values and motivations, after all.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n You can<\/em> and should<\/em> disagree with the media personalities you trust; they have their own unique values and motivations, after all. If they present themselves as unbiased but you find their coverage inconsistent either in opinion, tone, or frequency, you can second guess and unfollow. Keep abreast of their background by searching for their name + \u201ccontroversy\u201d online and review any existing controversies. (Remember to look for reliable sites!) <\/p>\n\n\n\n If we\u2019re getting our news from a person or source that has a reputation of bias, we should acknowledge it to ourselves and with others. If we insist on consuming only news that upholds our existing beliefs, there is likely critical information \u2014 both facts and points of view \u2014 that we\u2019re missing from our media consumption. When we find ourselves agreeing 100 percent of the time with the stories we read, perhaps it\u2019s time to explore what the counterarguments (and supporting research) are to the issues we feel most connected to. This goes for everyone, regardless of political ideology.<\/p>\n\n\n\n And the final tip in fact-checking is to practice humility. We are human after all \u2014 personal, social, and economic factors contribute to our views. And if not examined, our worldview can be unconsciously informed by our upbringing, economic status, race, religion, education, gender identity, sexuality, and more. By identifying and naming our influences, we can keep our biases in mind as we consume media.<\/p>\n\n\n\n To honestly fact-check our media consumption, we may have to give up some of the things we once held as truths to uncover the facts \u2014 including facts we don\u2019t like. Because the only way the world is going to change is if we\u2019re willing to change our own minds in the face of new, and real<\/span>, information.<\/p>\n\n\n\n What does your news habit look like \u2014 do you have a single favorite source, or do you regularly cross-check across platforms? \ud83d\uddde\ufe0f Share in the comments below!<\/p>\n\n\n\n Emily McGowan<\/strong><\/a> is the Editorial Director at The Good Trade. She studied Creative Writing and Business at Indiana University, and has over ten years of experience as a writer and editor in sustainability and lifestyle spaces. Since 2017, she\u2019s been discovering and reviewing the top sustainable home, fashion, beauty, and wellness products so readers can make their most informed decisions. Her editorial work has been recognized by major publications like The New York Times and BBC Worklife. You can usually find her in her colorful Los Angeles apartment journaling, playing with her cat, or crafting. Say hi on Instagram<\/a> or follow along with her Substack, Pinky Promise<\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n Psst! Google launched a new feature that lets you choose \u201cPreferred Sources\u201d \u2014 so your searches highlight trusted, values-driven outlets instead of clickbait. To add The Good Trade, tick the box beside our name<\/a>.<\/strong> That\u2019s it \u2014 our stories will be waiting whenever you search. Read more about it here.<\/a><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n Here\u2019s how to thoughtfully fact-check the media you read by questioning your assumptions, looking out for biased angles, holding sources accountable, and more.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":189,"featured_media":49673,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"ep_exclude_from_search":false,"_enable_custom_container":false,"_custom_container_max_width":"","_is_legacy_styles_disabled":true,"_is_thumbnail_disabled":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[329,31,331,323],"tags":[6,36,17,20,168,4,9],"class_list":["post-1165","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-activism","category-culture","category-media","category-wellness","tag-activism","tag-books-media","tag-culture","tag-culture-featured","tag-political-books-related-reading","tag-self","tag-wellness"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n
\n\n\n\n1. Go straight to the source<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n
2. Check the facts (then double check)<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n
3. Watch out for angles & emotional appeals<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n
5. Read trusted opinions, but don\u2019t call them facts<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n
\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n
\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"