Recognising false information online

How do we know what is accurate information and what isn’t? We live in a world where it is becoming increasingly difficult – and increasingly important – to be able to sort facts and robust information from ‘fake news’– disinformation and misinformation.

False information isn’t new

See more

Fake news and sensationalised stories are not new. 

Look at this cartoon from 1894. What do you think the cartoon is saying about media at that time? How do you think things have changed? 

Cartoon illustration by Frederick Burr Opper (1857–1937) 

Rights: Public domain

How to recognise a credible information source

Usually a number of factors combined will help identify credible news and information sources.

Here’s what to look for with mainstream media:

• A statement of guidelines or journalism ethics that are adhered to – for example, NZME’s editorial code of ethics or RNZ’s editorial standards. In New Zealand, many media outlets sign up to the New Zealand Media Council Principles (you can view a list of the membership on the same link).

• Fair and balanced reporting where both sides of a story are represented. This does not mean that a conspiracy theory or false story should be included.

• Corrections and complaints – robust media outlets have easy ways for people to report inaccuracies or to complain about broadcasting standards. You will also see evidence of published corrections and/or apologies.

• Currency – information is updated and there is transparency around the updates such as when it happened (this can include corrections).

• Credible news stories will usually not use defamatory language and hyperbole. However, in an age when media sites want to attract audiences, the emergence of clickbait and misleading headlines is no longer indicative of the factual accuracy of a site.

• Credible sites will state when an article is a collaboration with an organisation or business or if it’s a paid post from a third party. For example, the Science Learning Hub always states when resources are a collaboration with others. We do this not only to acknowledge the work and expertise of our collaborators but to also be completely transparent about possible influences.

• Science journals and related sites are bound by peer reviews and provide links to material cited.

Use the same factors as above to identify credible science reporting.

In New Zealand, robust science information can be found on several government-based websites and other organisations. These include the Science Media Centre, Royal Society Te Apārangi, The Conversation and RNZ. These sites are particularly good at supplying links to reports and information sources that underpin the story.

Government websites include the Office of the Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor, Department of Conservation, Ministry for Primary Industries, Ministry for the Environment and Stats NZ and Crown research institutes such as NIWA, Manaaki Whenua – Landcare Research, AgResearch and Plant & Food Research.

Interrogating information sources

These things are core to interrogating an information source:

• Lateral reading – evaluating information outside of the source site. This means looking for information about the site outside of the site. Opening a new tab and searching for information on the site beyond the source will enable an objective analysis.

• Not being deceived by the look of a website. Research shows people can be deceived by a slick, professional looking website. However, the presentation of the site does not automatically mean the site can be trusted.

• People can also be deceived by website branding and official-looking logos and domain names.

There are many ways that information can be falsified – from outright untruths to the subtle bending or misrepresentation of facts. The article Read news like a scientist will aid students to approach science news like a scientist – to see past the sensational and find the facts. The interactive Common logical fallacies and article Misinformation, disinformation and bad science explain ways in which information can be distorted.

Fact checking social media

Incorrectly attributed fire footage

See more

Some social media platforms have fact checking or offer community fact checking where other users can add more context. This post incorrectly attributes footage of wildfires to the January 2025 event in Los Angeles. The video was shared by multiple users, multiple times. Many used the video to claim climate change had nothing to do with the fires and they were deliberately set by arsonists.

Why do you think the post had incorrect video to support the written text?

What might be the benefits or drawbacks of using others on social media to fact check posts?

Rights: M-U-R-C-H

Social media can be particularly problematic when looking for accurate information. Social media platforms are one of the biggest factors behind the rapid spread of misinformation and disinformation online.

At the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, social media played a significant role in promoting inaccurate information. A 2020 survey examined frequent social media users in America and reported that:

• 29% were misinformed on at least one aspect of the virus

• 26% believed that COVID-19 would likely die off in the spring.

Another study looking at Twitter (now X) found that 25% of virus-related tweets contained incorrect information.

Younger demographics use social media platforms like TikTok as a news source and a search engine. Students need to develop skills to check the accuracy of social media posts, especially because sharing false information aids the validation of the fiction as a fact. This is because the more often some one sees certain information, regardless of the accuracy, they’re likely to recall or believe it.

A powerful habit for avoiding fake information is to stop and take a deep breath when you read a headline. Headlines are written to get attention. Clickbait – emotive and/or incendiary headlines – are becoming commonplace as even reputable media outlets and other organisations compete for online attention.

So before you start thumping out an angry or outraged response or sharing the post, stop, breathe – and then READ the article or post carefully. This also applies to any information you come across online. Ask yourself these things:

• Is the language highly emotional or is the headline outrageous? Does the full story actually support the headline?

• Understand your own biases and world view. Do you believe the post because of facts or because it feels good to believe and supports your world view? (Read more about bias here.)

• Check who posted the information and their previous posts. How reliable are they? What might their biases be? Do they link to a website? How robust does that site appear when using the lateral reading method?

• Search on a separate tab for other examples of the information. Are these claims repeated on credible sites? How many credible sources are there with the same information?

• Look carefully at images. Is the image from the actual story? Could it/or does it appear to be manipulated or generated by AI? A reverse image search such as Google Image Search can be very useful to determine when the image first appeared on the web. There may be credible sources to support the context of the photo to determine if it is accurately used in the new context. Does the image still hold up in relation to the post when searched?

• If statistics and data are cited, is there a link you can check? Perhaps you could ask for their sources to verify the information.

Do not share material you have not read and checked. If the information is dubious, do not share it, even to refute it. Unfortunately, the more people see false information, regardless of the context, they’ll be more likely to believe it.

Misleading images and dodgy graphs

Images, infographics and graphs can also be used to create a false narrative or to misrepresent information. Students should always be alert to problematic images:

• Images may have been cropped to fit a publication (online or in print) so the full story is not clear.

• Images can be intentionally cropped or digitally manipulated to remove things that don’t support the story being told.

• Emotive or incorrect images may be used to generate more clicks for a story, to increase profits or to evoke a strong emotional response.

Infographics and graph data can also tell a false story either through intentional misrepresentation or because the maker was unaware of standard conventions. You should always look at these representations carefully:

• Do the graphs follow standard conventions? Has the correct style of graph for the data or information been used?

• Are all blocks of information in proportion/using the same scale?

• Does the graph axis start from 0?

• Are the spacing and metrics used for the graph axis distorting the visual appearance of the data to suggest something inaccurate?

• Has data been cherry picked so that certain values and anomalies are removed to misrepresent a situation?

Graph misrepresentations

See more

There are many ways graphs can be manipulated to visually misrepresent data. This infographic shows some common methods – omitting the baseline, going against standard conventions, using the wrong type of graph for the data or information, and manipulating the y-axis so that the data is disproportionate. 

Download as a PDF. 

Rights: Venngage.com

Fact-checking help

There are dedicated fact-checking websites and apps that can be valuable when seeking to fact check information:

• BBC News Reality Check 

• Full Fact

• Snopes

Learning how information can be warped

The are many ways information can be distorted unintentionally or on purpose. Learn more in the article Misinformation, disinformation and bad science and the interactive Common logical fallacies.

Do not be afraid of complexity. Be afraid of people who promise an easy shortcut to simplicity.