SURVIVAL KIT

HOW TO READ MEDIA IN THE POST-TRUTH ERA

This project is created with the support of European Youth media - Non-formal Training in Berlin,

12-19 Nov 2018

TEAM:

Caterina Miryam Langella, Italy

Klára Sommerová, Czech Republic

Lorenzo di Stasi, Italy

Federico Berger, Italy

Urtė Alksninytė, Lithuania

Alžbeta Jánošíková, Slovakia

Introduction

Dealing with online news making has become very tricky and difficult. Within the World

Wide Web there are plenty of professional journalists, on the one hand, unreliable bloggers and

amateurs on the other, so that checking for reliable sources has become a tough activity to

carry out, especially for young reporters.

In this sense, we think that a kind of easily-readable guideline would be very useful to the

ones who are interested in checking if a news is true and reliable.

So, given that fake news activities represent a specific kind of emergency but also a

great challenge, we called this guideline a “Survival Kit”. As for emergency boxes, we offer

various possible solutions to the informative health problem of fake news.

Those possible remedies represent different fact-checking steps, in order to tackle the

issue in many different ways.

1. FEATURES

Examine the domain name of the site

The first thing to do is to examine the domain name of the site you’re reading. Sometimes

it can be really easy to detect a fake news by just watching at its URL. To better understand:

everything that occurs before the last dot is the second level domain (SLD), everything that

occurs after the last dot is the top level domain (TLD).

Some sites copy the domain of important news media, adding some words to the

second level domain or the top level domain. Examples:

The next one, now defunct, copied the CNN but the URL was: CNN-trending.com. In this

case, it reported the fake news that Stephen Hawking had developed a computer code to

trade very successfully on the stock market. It would have redistributed wealth from the 0.1 per

cent to the majority via a win-win trading platform.

So, sometimes the truth lies in some small details, like some letters in the domain, but more

often, to spread a fake news it is enough to just add a word to the name of a famous news

media .

This is the case of the “Denver Guardian”, that published a story that boosted Donald

Trump’s campaign. It published a false information on Hillary Clinton email leaks three days

before the election, alleging that an FBI agent investigating Clinton had been found dead in a

Maryland house fire. The story was shared on Facebook more than half a million times and

earned more than 15.5 million impressions and this was the only news published by this site in its

brief history.

Who Runs the Site?

A lot of fake news sites don’t even have an About Us page, like usatoday.com or

cbsnews.com.co, other ones, like worldnewsdailyreport.com, have got it but if you just look at it,

you can immediately understand that you’re not in a reliable journalistic site:

Who is the author?

Look for byline (if it doesn’t sound very professional, it probably isn’t). Look for the

information he or she gives (Facebook, Twitter, exc). If they don’t give them, be suspicious

because many official journalists have verified Twitter profiles and sizeable followings, which are

a couple of things to look out for. And if you can spot them on LinkedIn, look over their past

experience, education, recommendations from connections and other information to

determine their professionalism.

All the journalists that work for significant information sites, like the Washington Post,

always have a page where you can find all the information about them, including their social

media profiles.

Check the date

This is a very important step and sometimes also the most important news media miss it.

This is what happened to CNN last year. It had to correct an erroneous report that Donald Trump

had received advance notice from the anti-secrecy group WikiLeaks about a trove of hacked

documents that it planned to release during last year’s presidential campaign.

In fact, the email to Trump was sent a day after the documents, stolen from the

Democratic National Committee, were made available to the general public. The correction

undercut the main thrust of CNN’s story and the three journalists who wrote the article had to

resign.

2. SOURCES

The “too good to be true” expert

Deceptive headlines, neglected details, value opinions presented as facts, distortions or

completely made-up facts. We have all seen it. But what if there´s relevant person with

professional background promoting the thought that´s simply hard to believe? The one thing

that real experts in the field have is their reputation. Not only they are known locally (or even

nationally/worldly) and in their professional communities, they leave traces in terms of their

publications, interviews, comments on other media or social networking sites. In other words,

they leave footprints by shielding their reputation.

So in doubt wondering whether the person is authentic try to use these easy steps:

1) Look for the expert on the organization website he/she claims to be associated

with;

2) Look for their credentials, CV, social networking sites;

3) Try to find previous past interaction with other professionals in debates, media

interviews and appearances;

4) Search for discrepancies in their past statements.

5) Still in doubt? Contact the person for comments on the problematic statement

you found.

Case of the Senior Pentagon Russia Analyst LTC David Jewberg

David Jewberg (alleged Senior Pentagon Russia Analyst) represented himself as an

actual person and maintained a popular Facebook page with about 25k subscribers. As a

Pentagon insider speaking on behalf of the Department of Defense, he was also frequently

quoted by media (mainly in Ukrainian and Russian) on topics concerning Ukraine and Russia.

In the thorough investigation initiated by Bellingcat, the journalists revealed not only that

Jewberg was an imagined persona connected to a group of individuals inside the US revolving

around American financier Dan K Rapoport. A number of his personal friends and professional

contacts helped prop up this fake persona and make him become a respected analyst and

real-life contact.

The U.S. Department of Defense and State Department have disavowed the existence of

David Jewberg, stating that they have never employed a person by this name.

Quotes for millions

Case of the alleged Trump interview for the magazine “People” from 1998.

In a 1998 People interview, Donald Trump said: "(…) if I were to run, I'd run as a

Republican. They're the dumbest group of voters in the country. They believe anything on Fox

News. I could lie and they'd still eat it up. I bet my numbers would be terrific."

The meme has been drifting across the internet since Trump´s campaign to become a

Republican Presidential nominee and afterwards gained traction in 2015. Despite of thousands

of retweets, the interview - and subsequently resulting quote - never happened.

”Despite People‘s comprehensive online

content archive, we found no interview or

profile on Donald Trump in 1998 (or any

other time) that quoted his saying anything

that even vaguely resembled the words in

this meme.”

Wonder what to look for when it comes to quotes?

1) Look for the original media source or its archives.

2) Try to see whether the statement was taken out of context or might be

completely invented out of scratch.

3) When it comes to translated quotes or statements from other languages, search

for the original piece and retranslate it.

4) By verifying cited sources, you can make sure that the information has been

accurately applied and not altered to meet someone else´s point of view.

Lost in hyperlinks

References to non-existing messages of reputable media are classic manipulation

methods used for making the message seems legitimate.

Use these easy guidelines to navigate through:

1. When the hyperlink does not go to the website of the reputable media, it is

usually the first sign that the news is not legit.

2. Look and search for the news at the website of the alleged publisher or simply use

browser to search for the content.

3. Still in doubt? Contact the original publisher to check whether they have

published such story.

Case: Fake reports referencing CNN and BBC circulated before Kenya´s election

News reports allegedly coming from CNN and BBC has been circulated with links

pointing to both broadcasters. The created surveys and videos referred to the Kenya´s election

showing President Uhuru Kenyatta well ahead in polls ahead of August's poll. In fact, opinion

polls at that time suggested otherwise that neither he nor rival Raila Odinga have enough

support to win outright.

Moreover, the fake CNN report was cut from a CNN Philippines broadcast to a fake

video that uses CNN logo. However, the font used in the headlines was visibly different from the

one normally used by the broadcaster.

While CNN distanced itself from the news and afterwards taken to Twitter to confirm that

the video report is fake, the BBC has urged people to verify any stories claiming to be from the

broadcaster by visiting the BBC website.

3. DATA VISUALIZATION

The way the media show statistics and data can be misleading or give false information.

Both graphs are taken from the National Center for Environmental Information. The first graph

shows the ocean’s average temperatures between 1880 and 2016.

In this first picture, it seems that the temperatures have been quite stable throughout the

years, but it doesn’t take into consideration the context and the fact that a change of 0.1 % for

oceans is already impactful.

The second graph shows the average temperature variation which is a more relevant

way to measure the ocean’s temperature warming. Also, this warming has occurred from the

surface to a depth of about 2,300 feet (700 meters), where most marine life thrives, thus

menacing the lives of them.

Reuters Upside-down graph

Reliable sources of information are not always reliable. This is the case of Reuters, one of

the main news agencies in the world. This Reuters chart about the number of Florida gun deaths

since the Stand Your Ground law passed ends up implying the opposite of what the data shows:

Because it is upside down. The Y axis starts at 0 and then goes down to 800, which makes it look

like the gun deaths were less than zero. Moreover, the X-axis is not precise since it doesn’t show

the single years and the number of gun deaths.

Guidelines for good Infographics

René Descartes (1596-1650), the French encyclopedist and philosopher, was the first to

use a rectangular coordinate system to visualize his observations. Graphical presentations should

help to simplify complicated relations that may be difficult to observe. With the assistance of

charts, information is gotten, without the trouble of studying the particulars of which it is

composed.

How to design a good table

Column headers, at the top of the table, should identify the data presented in each

column of the table and provide any relevant metadata (e.g. unit of measurement, time period

or geographic area).

The table title should give a clear and accurate description of the data. It should answer

the three questions “what”, “where” and “when”. Be short and concise, and avoid using verbs.

How to use data correctly

“Planned age of retirement by occupation, Canada, 2007.”

This text gives all the information needed to understand and use the data correctly.

- Row stubs, in the first column of the table, should identify the data presented in each row

of the table.

- Footnotes, at the bottom of the table, may provide any additional information needed

to understand and use the data correctly (e.g. definitions).

- The source line, at the bottom of the table, should provide the source of the data, i.e. the

organization that produced the data and the data collection method (e.g. population

census or labour force survey).

How to design a good chart

Statistics can often be better understood when they are presented in a chart than in a

table. A chart is a visual representation of statistical data, in which the data are represented by

symbols such as bars or lines. It is a very effective visual tool, as it displays data quickly and easily,

facilitates comparison and can reveal trends and relationships within the data.

A chart generally takes the form of a one- or two-dimensional figure, such as a bar chart

or a line chart. Charts can be used to illustrate patterns in a large amount of data or to

communicate a key finding or message.

You should consider using charts if you want to show:

- Comparison: How much? Which item is bigger or smaller?

- Changes over time: How does a variable evolve?

- Frequency distribution: How are the items distributed? What are the differences?

- Correlation: Are two variables linked?

- Relative share of a whole: How does one item compare to the total?

If you decide that a chart is the most appropriate way to present your data, then no

matter what type of chart you use, you need to keep the following three guidelines in mind:

- Define your target audience: What do they know about the issue?

- Determine the message you want to communicate: What do the data show? Is there

more than one message?

- Determine the nature of your message: Do you want to compare items, show time trends

or analyze relationships in your data?

A good chart:

- grabs the reader’s attention;

- presents the information simply, clearly and accurately;

- does not mislead;

- displays the data in a concentrated way (e.g. one line chart instead of many pie charts);

- facilitates data comparison and highlights trends and differences;

- illustrates messages, themes or storylines in the accompanying text.

A chart is not always the most appropriate tool to present statistical information.

Sometimes a text and/or data table may provide a better explanation to your audience and

save you considerable time and effort.

You should reconsider using charts when your data:

- are very dispersed;

- have too few values;

- have too many values;

- show little or no variation.

4. VISUALS

Within fake news articles, it is common to meet up several visual items, such as images or

videos, in order to reinforce the perception of credibility on represented facts. A possible way to

spotlight when misinformation is in the making with the support of visual items consists in the

verification of sources which produced those elements.

The attached video is taken from YouTube official account of RussiaToday, the

international Russian broadcaster particularly concerned in reporting alternative facts.

Moreover, with the help of Google Images it is possible to track down online similar

images to the ones of the articles.

In the present case, the image of the article is composed by two different pictures:

- Julian Assange staring outside through a window

- A sofa carried on a van outside of the Ecuadorian embassy (as YT video shows)

+

Once the two distinct pictures are separated, it is time to put them on Google Images.

While the image of the white van has been employed for articles belonging to the

presented, specific narrative, the same doesn’t go for the staring Assange’s picture, that

belongs to other articles too, published even earlier than the one under analysis.

Turning to the YT video, it is possible to carry out further analysis with the help of YouTube

Data Viewer, an online tool able to give as an output features extracted from the video.

Furthermore, the application is able to investigate through the World Wide Web, looking for

frames that look like similar to the ones belonging to the visual item under analysis.

Results coming from Reverse Search analysis show that a consistent amount of articles

has been created in correspondence of the publication of the video in the 22nd of July (or few

days after). Moreover, it is observable that, among resulting websites, no traditional, national

newspaper is concerned with the video of a presumed arrest of Julian Assange, as long as no

official source has shared the visual outlet.

5. BEYOND THE LINES

To check or not to check

When it comes to reaching audience attention, wording takes one of the crucial roles in

readers decisions over reading the article. It can be specific information, engaging quote,

impressive data, well-known reference or else - that leaves you wanting to continue reading and

revealing deeper layers of the article.

However, be aware, that great articles can never be on the same page with:

- Exaggeration - enlarging the truth, using words not according to their actual meaning,

overstating. This technique is widely used for clickbait articles.

Words as “shocking”, can still be used, but in the context of truly shocking reports, such as

war zones, crimes or situations that can really affect someone's health or traumatize just by

reading it. If the exaggerating word is put into commas or written in italic font, it is a sign of

professional journalism.

Phrases as “you won’t believe it” are usually not that surprising and only indicates that

the article is bubbled up. If you are still wondering whether it is worth the read, ask yourself, is it

really that hard to believe that could actually happen.

- Braggadocio - empty and arrogant boasting.

If an article reminds you of an advertisement it probably is an advertisement or a part of

PR campaign. Otherwise it is just a cheap technique to buy someone’s attention or an example

of subjective opinion of the journalist.

- Credibility reminders - words or phrases that demonstrates the credibility. Journalists

don’t need to prove the truthfulness of their articles, as everything they write must follow

the universal ethics of Journalism - be true and unbiased.

Typical credibility reminders can be:

- totally true,

- 100% real,

- we will tell you the truth,

- it will be hard to believe,

- no one will tell you this and etc.

Satire: You just got pranked

As we speak about satire, we must understand that it belongs to the traditional genres of

humor and is exploited into public sphere striving to draw attention towards some common

themes of politics or events and most importantly - creates the landscape of social criticism and

changes. Still, at the moment of considering satirical news or elements of satire as truthful, we

are creating a mechanism of fake news, that can be harmful as well as absurd to consume.

Therefore, not to fall for satirical news, always ask a simple critical question yourself - is this

can really happen? If you are still not sure, use all of the techniques of media survival kit and be

aware that mostly, satirical news websites are well-know and do not hide their motives in the

agenda.

The official website of Suffolk gazette states that “...stories (nothing libelous, abusive,

racist, sexist, generally offensive etc.) must be remotely funny and not get us into trouble”.

6. FACT CHECKERS

At the very end, if you still wonder whether the article is true or fake - don’t be shy to ask

the professional help. Here are the top websites that can serve you as fact checkers:

Politifact – Politifact.com - is simply the best source for political fact checking. Won the Pulitzer

Prize.

Fact Check – www,FactCheck.org is a project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the

University of Pennsylvania. They monitor the factual accuracy of what is said by major U.S.

political players in the form of TV ads, debates, speeches, interviews and news releases.

Open Secrets – https://www.opensecrets.org is by far the best source for discovering how much

and where candidates get their money. They also track lobbying groups and whom they are

funding.

Snopes – https://www.snopes.com has been the definitive Internet reference source for urban

legends, folklore, myths, rumors, and misinformation for a long time. Snopes is also usually the first

to report the facts.

The Sunlight Foundation – www.sunlightfoundation.com is a national, nonpartisan, nonprofit

organization that uses the tools of civic tech, open data, policy analysis and journalism to make

our government and politics more accountable and transparent to all. Sunlight primarily focuses

on money’s role in politics.

Poynter Institute – https://www.poynter.org is not a true fact checking service. They are however

a leader in distinguished journalism and produce nothing but credible and evidence based

content. If Poynter reports it, you can count on it being true.

Flack Check – www.flackcheck.org provides resources designed to help viewers recognize

flaws in arguments in general and political ads in particular.

Truth or Fiction – (https://www.truthorfiction.com/) very similar to Snopes. They tend to focus

more on political rumors and hoaxes.

Hoax Slayer – (hoax-slayer.com/) Another service that debunks or validates internet rumors and

hoaxes.

Fact Checker by the Washington Post – https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/)

has a very clear left-center bias and this is reflected in their fact checks. Their fact checks are

excellent and sourced; however their bias is reflected in the fact that they fact check right wing

claims more than left.

SITOGRAPHY:

Features:

● Dwight Marvin Library : https://hvcc.libguides.com/fakenews/url

● Fake Usa Today site: http://usatoday.com.co/

● Fake CBS News site:http://cbsnews.com.co/

● Fake news about Steven Hawkings: https://i2-prod.cambridge-

news.co.uk/incoming/article12468726.ece/ALTERNATES/s810/Hawking1.jpg

● Denver Guardian fake news: https://www.cambridge-

news.co.uk/business/business-news/faking-it-unravelling-fake-news-12468676

● World News Daily Report, About Us: https://worldnewsdailyreport.com/about-us/

● https://www.washingtonpost.com/people/philip-

kennicott/?utm_term=.106a0673a29d

● CNN error: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/08/business/media/cnn-correction-

donald-trump-jr.html

Sources:

● NewsPunch.com https://newspunch.com/assange-arrest-ecuadorian-embassy-

evacuated/?fbclid=IwAR03_kXOBxgHF0ZjHnlikqjPnBMead5AP0hsmfQ3p4A-

rsjTUMxljTTQQ_c

● BBC News: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-40762796

● Belling cat: https://www.bellingcat.com/news/americas/2018/04/02/curious-

case-david-jewberg-fake-senior-pentagon-russia-analyst/

Visuals:

● News punch www.newspunch.com

Data visualization:

● Making data meaningful - A guide to presenting statistics, United Nations

Economic Commission for Europe:

● Politifact.com https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/64157/4374310/33-

UNECE-making-data-meaningful-Part2-EN.pdf/d5b954e2-b110-469b-a2b5-

78aa7c12ab62

● How to spot misleading graphs:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E91bGT9BjYk

Beyond the lines:

● Football.London https://www.football.london/watford-fc/news/two-shocking-

decisions-verdict-chalobah-15399469

● Who https://www.who.com.au/who-bought-the-brady-bunch-home

● Birminghammail https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-

news/wonderful-remembrance-day-pictures-make-15402228

● USA Today

https://eu.usatoday.com/story/tech/reviewedcom/2018/11/15/staples-and-

office-depot-have-amazing-black-friday-computer-deals/38537357/

● Social News Daily https://socialnewsdaily.com/70415/a-totally-true-completely-

unbiased-history-of-marijuana-in-the-united-states/

● Wral https://www.wral.com/it-s-real-downton-abbey-film-has-been-

confirmed/17701394/

● Suffolk gazette https://www.suffolkgazette.com/news/girl-

disappears/?fbclid=IwAR1_nVyWcaWQsEOxRdpRzHv_ab-

_sJGPqhwtFbLpeDRbgJSDXvDCkc9BZGs