Read on Twitter
What I do when verifying the credibility of news/rumours:
- Trace a story back to the original source. Always check who reported the story first.
- Make a judgment call on the credibility of said original source by looking at either their track record and/or evidence included.
- Trace a story back to the original source. Always check who reported the story first.
- Make a judgment call on the credibility of said original source by looking at either their track record and/or evidence included.
The first of these is very simple. Most sites who aggregate should backlink or will at least name the source. You can google if it's only the latter.
Obviously photographic or video evidence is preferable, but isn't 100% watertight as we all know editing is possible.
Obviously photographic or video evidence is preferable, but isn't 100% watertight as we all know editing is possible.
If the news/rumour is purely in written form, track record counts for a lot.
When reading a story, think, "What other news has this person/outlet broken?"
If they post purely reactionary pieces, it says a lot. If they break news that's later confirmed - that does too.
When reading a story, think, "What other news has this person/outlet broken?"
If they post purely reactionary pieces, it says a lot. If they break news that's later confirmed - that does too.
I'm not saying people without a strong track record of credible stories or body of work DON'T break exclusives because everyone has to start somewhere.
That said, just be sensible about it. Don't believe everything you read. Judge everything, including my work, on its own merit.
That said, just be sensible about it. Don't believe everything you read. Judge everything, including my work, on its own merit.
Oh, and stop believing people who simply post "rumours suggest" with some kind of huge story. LOOK for where the rumours originated from. Anyone can post anything with those two words at the start.
