posted on Nov, 4 2017 @ 11:14 AM
1) The more exotic a story seems, the more likely it is to be a load of horsefeathers.
2) If something looks like a load of horsefeathers, the old rule applies: "Show and tell." Let's see your sources, have links to relevant material,
see excerpts of documents, get interviewees on the record (and ideally on video). Unless there's a very good reason for non-transparency throughout a
story, treat it with suspicion.
And if you still can't make your mind up, ask yourself: "Who is telling me this, and why?"
(N.b., the above still won't tell you whether you can believe what you are reading, it just tells you how likely it is that it's outright fiction.)
is some interesting research by the
Harvard/Shorenstein team. It's about Fake News, but they think that term isn't sophisticated enough to describe what's happening online these days.
This diagram (from the report) illustrates how they perceive the problem.
So, a site like NeonNettle.com would fall into "misinformation" and "disinformation" but not "malinformation." Something like the DNC leaks
fall into "malinformation." (IMHO "Pizzagate" would fall into all three categories.) It's an interesting way to think about the whole
It's quite long and wordy, but the executive summary is fairly comprehensible, so just read that if you're short of patience.
edit on 4-11-2017
by audubon because: typo as usual