A question I get a lot from people: how do I know what science news to trust?

Here is my helpful list. Yes it involves work on the part of the consumer, but that's life these days.

1. Does the headline you are reading shock you? Does it seem wrong? If so, look for verification from other news sources. If it only appears in one outlet, I'd investigate further.

2. If you move past the headline and read the article: who is quoted in it? Are there any interviews with scientists at a university or agency? Or are the only people interviewed from a non-profit?

Not saying non-profits are bad sources, but they are typically biased.

2. (cont) This bias isn't terrible if it is an issue-based group and they want to say, save the koalas, but a solid journalist will find an OUTSIDE expert source to verify the claim.

3. Is the article based on a press release from one group? Again, this can be fine, but unless a journalist verifies the claim in a press release, there is no guarantee this is true. If the article doesn't make it clear where the info is coming from...this is bad.

4. Luckily on Twitter, as certain articles go viral scientists and people who know what they are talking about reply and set the record straight, so read some of the tweets directly underneath the viral tweet

5. And finally, some science news sources are just more reputable than others because they have a more rigorous editorial process. Mistakes always slip through everywhere, understandable, but find one you trust.

In this koala case, I see some people argue that it is ok this is exaggerated because the end (saving the species) justifies the means...I just disagree with that and think accuracy is always important in reporting.

Addendum: Journalism is not republishing press releases, no matter who puts them out. Nonprofits, universities, agencies put out great work but the journalism part of writing an article is finding outside comment and not just repeating a press release.

People have been adding some great tips! I kept this simple because I didn't want people to feel overwhelmed, but if you'd like to get even further into this, more tips:

-Follow links in the piece to make sure "suspect" information is being accurately quoted

While you are looking at the source material, can you tell who funded it? How large was the study? What journal it was originally published in (if any)?

If you like this thread, it's basically part of a talk I have given many places, so you can invite me to give a talk at your school and then you get the privilege of also having lunch with me.