Are you using reliable sources of information when you decide whom to trust?

Here are some questions and a few tips about reliable sources of information:

• What is the scientific consensus on the topic that’s being reported on? ¹ Is the outlet clear about that consensus? Or are they reporting fringe opinions
• Are there signs of conspiratorial thinking? Indicators of conspiratorial thinking include the use of dog whistle terms, symbols and emblems of conspiracy groups, or offering elaborate explanations of events that have not been accepted by established scientists.2, 3, 4
• Does the source clearly distinguish between factual reporting and editorial opinion
• Reliable sources correct themselves. ^{5, 6, 7, 8, 9} Does your source do that? News sources that do not offer corrections do not care about the accuracy of the information they provide and should not be trusted.
• Does the source rely on click-bait headlines or unattributed sources? Reliable sources engage with criticism of their stories without being defensive. They are willing to assess counterevidence that contradict their stories.
• Does the source operate under reliable oversight? Someone other than the author of the article should also be responsible for checking the accuracy of the story and the evidence drawn to support it.
• Remember that you can fact-check your sources of information.¹⁰

Additional Resources

1. The Consensus Handbook on climate change
2. Fake or fact: how to recognise a conspiracy theory The Guardian
3. Conspiracy Theories: How to Spot Them, and What You Need to Know Teen Vogue
4. How to spot a conspiracy theory when you see one The Conversation
5. The blur between facts and opinions in the media GFC Global
6. Identifying the difference between fact and opinion The Guardian Foundation, resource for school teachers
7. Distinguishing Between Factual and Opinion Statements in the News Pew Research Center
8. Example of piece clearly marked as opinion A New Book Manages to Get Climate Science Badly Wrong
9. Example of defensive response instead of engagement with criticism to the previous piece My response to a Scientific American hit piece
10. Snopes fact-checking website