Judging Media Sources: Fake and Biased News and Fact Checking Sites

Of course the best defense against bias and a lack of objectivity is to stay attuned to multiple sources, not just one or a few. Take care to remember CONFIRMATION BIAS: Your own values, socialization, beliefs, and experiences will decrease your resistance to biased and fake news that conforms to your own views and pre-dispositions. Fortunately, there are many honest and objective websites that can assist you in checking sites and claims, but these below are some of the better ones. The first ones are focused on politics and government and are better for those purposes. The second ones are general-purpose, including politics. Use them to check viral rumors and verify claims. Nevertheless, not all stories are fact-checked, so it's important to develop methods for detecting fake news and bias with a skeptical eye:

Cynicism vs. Skepticism:

There is no utility in cynicism-- taking the destructive attitude that all politicians, journalists, and opinion leaders are biased, corrupt, liars, etc. Often, cynics display this attitude in a pretentious attempt to show they are intellectually superior and "can't be fooled by all the liars." This is an excuse not to think... not to be responsible for research and reasoning so that one can distinguish good from bad. Actually, most of these politicians, journalists, and opinion leaders sincerely believe they are trying to do good. But sometimes speakers and writers are pushed by the pressure of campaigns, competition, party loyalty, and policy-making to exaggerate or selectively show the best side of their argument. Therefore, when considering their claims, be skeptical-- be curious, apply a healthy dose of questioning, withhold immediate judgement until you can carefully evaluate, and be intellectually humble and open-minded. Ask questions such as these:

Important Skeptical Questions:

Who or what is the source and what motivations and previous record of credibility does this source have? Is it humor, a parody, or political satire? Does the source have a website, a location, a staff list, etc.? If a news organization's or an interest group's URL is given, Google that organization to verify the URL is real. Often the URL looks similar to a professional site but has a different domain name (the first part of the URL after the protocol like "https").
Who is the author? Search to see the author's background, associations, and possible criticisms. Authors are sometimes missing altogether... or invented, misquoted, or taken out of context--so investigate.
Are there numerous grammatical mistakes-- a sure sign of unprofessional and unedited writing?
If online, look at the URL extension (the three letters at the end of the site's root address). Endings like .gov (official governmental), .edu (higher education institution), .org (non-profit institution), .mil (U.S. military) are more reliable sources-- although (1) others sometimes get these extensions, and (2) official sites may have their own mistakes or biases as well, although not as commonly or profoundly.
What kind of links are there on webpages? Are there links to other known reputable sources? Is it heavy with advertising, and if so, what kind of advertising--mainstream commercial or conspiracy stories and suspicious sites?
What is the full story? Read the entire claim. It may reveal suspicious inconsistencies or unprofessional methods. Authors know that many will read only the headline and not bother with investigating further. Are the details well-documented? Do allegations have specific facts that can be verified? Cross-check their claims using other known reputable sites.
Are the terms used qualified, vague, interpretable, or unclear? Are the words emotionally loaded with good or bad tacit assumptions?
Are statistics being used selectively, vaguely, or manipulatively? Is the information selective or comprehensive? Is it random anecdotal hearsay or wide in scope?
What is the context, time, circumstances, etc. at the time the comments or decisions were made? Look for dates too-- often false stories are recycled and distorted. Some stories circle the globe for years with different names, places, and events.
Are reputable sites referenced with quotes and data? Go to the organization's official site and use their search engine to verify.
Are professional pollsters (e.g. Pew Research Center, Gallup, Rasmussen, Monmouth, CBS/New York Times, ABC/Washington Post, Reuters) cited? Go to their sites to make sure they are being accurately reported or to compare them against unknown pollsters.
Are the photographs genuine and not altered (Photoshopped)? Examine shading, colors, and consistency. Sometimes backgrounds reveal hoaxes because known structures and landmarks indicate locations. Sometimes famous people look younger (or still alive!) or there is a time stamp on the photo. You can also upload the image into Google images to see other (possibly earlier or original) copies of it on the Internet or use other free sites.
Does this information recognize alternative possible explanations, causes, and scenarios? Is this claim overly bold and assumptive or is there a degree of intellectual humility and recognition that there are other factors to consider?
Finally, often fake news reports are fantastical, outrageous, bizarre, highly unexpected, or highly unlikely. Disastrous perils and tragic outcomes are predicted, sometimes along with simplistic solutions. This prompts two questions: Why are reputable news organizations, who are highly competitive with one another, not reporting the story? And if it really is credible wouldn't those harmed by the story be issuing denials or excuses or rebuttals?

Political Fact-Checking Sites:

http://www.factcheck.org/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/

http://www.politifact.com/

https://ballotpedia.org/Verbatim

http://www.politico.com/ (not specifically a fact-checker site, but often does fact-checking)

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com

Fact-Checking Diagnostic Sites That Investigate Hoaxes and Fake Bots:

https://hoaxy.iuni.iu.edu/ (tracks and shows how fake news spreads; watch the brief tutorial first)

https://botometer.iuni.iu.edu/#! (shows how likely a Twitter account is to be a robot rather than a human, designed to spread a story and make it popular)

General Fact-Checking Sites:

http://www.snopes.com/ (Snopes is probably the most respected general-purpose site.)

https://www.truthorfiction.com/

http://urbanlegends.about.com/

http://www.hoax-slayer.com/

http://www.straightdope.com/