Questions help explore whether info is news or nonsense
I’ve had some interesting discussion lately with a family member about something he perceives as big news, but which has not been reported by any traditional media outlets, notably none of the most trusted legacy sources. I have not said that his “news” is not true, only that is not verified.

Figuring out what is and isn’t news, and what is and isn’t reliable information, is an issue not just with my adult family member, but with society (and especially young people) writ large. A study called News Literacy in America: A survey of teen information attitudes, habits and skills (2024) found that:

• 

  News Literacy Project

  Nearly half of teens surveyed thought the press does more to harm democracy than to protect it.
• Eight in 10 teens surveyed reported seeing posts on social media that spread or promote conspiracy theories, and of those, 81% said they are inclined to believe one or more of them.
• Most teens struggled to distinguish between different types of information, such as news, advertisement, opinion and entertainment. (News Literacy Project)

How do we help teens, and my relative, make sense of the infosphere? The best way to address these issues is through rigorous training in media literacy, which I’ve taught in many different forms in many different places around the world. As I teach it, rule number one is to remove partisan considerations from the discussion. In lots of places, but especially the US, partisanship chokes off discussions like overgrown weeks in a drain pipe. I also strive to choke off conversations that use condescending labels like conspiracy theorist for people who believe and spread unverified information. As a media literacy trainer, the worst thing you can tell someone is that they information that they believe is wrong, or that they are stupid for believing it. (In fact, my family member is smart and analytical). Instead, I give my trainees the tools to analyze information themselves, and come to their own conclusions as to whether the information they believe is genuine or not.

These media literacy tools are crowned by a list of questions one can employ to analyze information. These questions include:

--What person or entity created or shared the information? What is their expertise? Do they have first-hand knowledge of the news, or is their knowledge merely hearsay? (Hearsay, as we know, is inadmissible in court!)

--Why did they create it or share it?

--How do the creators benefit from disseminating the message? (The benefit could be financial, political, social, etc.)

--Who does the message harm (Political enemies? Business competitors?)

--Who is the target audience of the information?

--How does the story or information grab the audience’s attention? (If the attention grabber is emotional rather than logical, that’s a red flag for misinformation).

--What points of view are shown? Have those who dispute the information being given space to share their dissent, or is the information presented with only one side given?

--Are salient facts are omitted, or distorted?

--How does the way the information is presented (framed) change the meaning of the information? Is there context? (How do omitted or distorted facts and a one-sided presentation change how the information is perceived by the target audience?)

--Where is the hard evidence? This includes first-hand testimony (not “I’ve heard” or “I’ve been told”) and documentation, especially financial documentation.

--Is the information verified by multiple sources? Most journalism outlets use the three source rule. One source is not sufficient, especially when there is no trail of documentation to support the information this source is presenting.

--Is the information outdated? Is this an old story simply repackaged?

There are more, but these are a good start. Yes, it’s impractical to do this kind of analysis with all the information we consume. Still, being aware and skeptical, thinking about the right questions to ask, and diversifying ones’ news sources can go a long way to clear out the weeds clogging our civil discourse.