4.2: Using fact-checks from news search- Chik-Fil-A

In our Keanu Reeves example, the absence of any news stories was telling. But many times when you use Google News (or other news search) you'll find something better: a fact-check on the claim.

Let's take a story circulating as I write this, one claiming a Georgia lawmaker believed she was told by a Chik-Fil-A employee to "go back to her country" but later clarified that she was mistaken.

In this case we do the news search, and we do find something: a fact-check by Snopes:

The Snopes fact-check labels this as false, but more importantly it presents the background in detail: a similar incident happened at another store sometime earlier, but the Babylon Bee is a satirical publication that created a very similar (but false) story.

Snopes initially gave this story a "false" rating, but many objected, claiming that the site did not attempt to hide it was satire, and labeling satirical articles as false was unfair (and a bit humorless!). Snopes made a counterargument that Babylon Bee articles were repeatedly shared by readers as true, due to a deceptive way the Bee constructs articles (a practice sometimes called fauxtire). Eventually Snopes relented and introduced a new ruling: "labelled satire."

So was Snopes right in the initial ruling? Wrong? Somewhere in between? Was this a case of semi-intentional deception, or just satire not funny enough for people to recognize as satire?

Here's the thing: people can get twisted in knots over the ruling, and both sides can go into outrage over the unfairness of it all, but for you as a fact-checker the ruling doesn't matter so much. It's the fact-checking article that is most valuable to you.

Fact-checks are useful to web readers because they are designed to give a concise explanation of particular claims and because good fact checks (like good Wikipedia articles) show their work by linking to high quality sources that you can look at yourself. The ruling is helpful, but isn't what matters most: it's the explanation and all the links they've compiled for you. If you doubt this ruling, you can click to the site itself and see that both sides have a point, the Babylon Bee bills themselves as a satirical publication, although, as Snopes initially noted, this is not made as clear as it might be.

Questions for Reflection

• The Babylon Bee has been criticized by many for repeatedly writing satire that is not notably satirical enough for people to recognize it as a joke. Critics say that this is reckless, as most people will develop false impressions from reading the headlines that float past on Facebook. What are your thoughts on this? Some links on this issue are included at the bottom of the page.
• If people are sharing a story as if it is true, it makes sense for Snopes to fact-check it. But is "False" the correct rating for satire or fauxtire? Look at the ratings Snopes uses and develop two arguments: one argument that Snopes should introduce a new category of "satire", and one argument that it should not.
• Even if you disagree with the rating of false, does the Snopes article give you enough information to make up your own mind?

Scanning Results Using "Click Restraint"

Some times a search on a claim will turn up multiple stories, many of which are not relevant. Consider this bit of viral news that circulated on Facebook:

You know when you go to Walmart and they have the wipes to clean your cart handle? How many of you don’t use them? Well I do, and I always thought of the germs only. Was told today that the police chief also suggests you do it also because of all the problems with drugs now days, and if they have fentanyl or something like that still on their hands and they touch that cart handle and then you do, it can get into your system. Scary but worth taking the time to clean the handle. All you’d have to do is rub your nose or touch your child’s mouth.

Searching initially on just fentanyl shopping cart gives a mixed bag of results.

When we scan the blurbs we find that the first article — even though it is from a reputable source — contains the words fentanyl and shopping cart, but is not really about fentanyl on shopping carts. Likewise, the reference to shopping carts in the second one is to homelessness, not grocery store drug scares. It's the text of the third result that's in line with what we're researching, and that's the one we want to click. (Though once getting there we may want to use our source investigation techniques on Forbes).

Vocabulary: click restraint

Click restraint is a term introduced by Sam Wineburg and Sarah McGrew to describe a behavior fact-checkers exhibit that less skilled people do not. Fact-checkers scan multiple results to try and find the particular result that combines trustworthiness with relevance before they click, often visiting the second page of search results.

Remember to Stop

This brings us to the move that often gets forgotten by students: the "S" in SIFT for "stop." As seen above, one aspect of "stopping" is to stop before you reflexively click the top search result. You want to take a second or two to make sure you're clicking the best result, not just the first one you see.

Another aspect of stopping is occasionally reformulating a search. We do see one fact-check in the above results, but perhaps we're surprised we don't see more. Maybe we start reading the Forbes story but find it unclear. If the results are not what we want we can modify the search query, here by adding "fact-check".

When we do that we see at least a half dozen fact-checks on this from Poynter (a well known fact-checking outfit), CBS News, and others. We choose the CBS News link and find a good explanation of why the fentanyl story is highly improbable, combined with advice that wiping those handles during flu season is something you might want to do anyway.

Not Everything In Google News Is Credible

Although we mentioned this earlier in the course, it bears repeating. Using news search can give you a more trustworthy set of results than web search, but there are still untrustworthy sites in the mix, including a few that publish outright false information.

The same way that you practice click restraint in looking for the most relevant link, you should also practice click restraint and choose the most credible result on the page. It won't always be the first. As we practice this more, choosing the best result will become much easier.

In-Depth

Satire or Deceit? Christian Humor Site Feuds With Snopes

Contributors and Attributions

• Template:ContribNotionChkPleaseStarter