Misinformation comes in many forms. It can be subtle. It can be obtuse. It can have a small impact, or it can negatively affect thousands. What do you do? How do you start? When do you fact check? When do you say the information is "good enough" for now? The answer to those questions is often answerable at an individual and case-by-case situation. I know, how annoying.
A good place to start is to figure out what you're dealing with. Then you can try approaching it with a strategy that makes the most sense for that use-case. This page talks about different types of information and strategies for how to approach evaluating them.
Let's say you need to do some research on recommended limits around sugar consumption. You find the website: www.sugar.org.
Actually.... not much. We notice that it has a .org ending and not a .com ending, which could be good, right? However, anyone can purchase and register a .com, .net, .co .org, or many other website endings and that distinction doesn't tell us much. The exceptions include: websites ending with a .gov are an exception because they must be a U.S.-based government organization, and .edu which is only available to accredited institutions and eligibility requirements are vetted by the U.S. Department of Commerce.
Side quest: If you want to find out who owns a specific domain name, you can look it up at GoDaddy.com.
Before we even visit the website, you can click on the 3 dots from within the Google results next to the website to get a perspective on the website from an outside source. This tells us that this is a trade association representing sugar growers. It also mentions that this group has "received criticism and legal action for promoting claims about sugar's health benefits."
If our goal is to learn more about the potential health benefits of sugar, that's enough context to navigate away from the website as a credible source since sugar growers have a vested interest in sugar being portrayed as having any health benefits.
If it passed the "generally checks-out" by its peers test, then you could move on to look at the content its self. Often we can find useful information about a website from the About section, by looking at their editorial process, seeing who's on the board of directors, or looking through the reporting it usually does.
There are times when the website doesn't tell you much about themself, or what you can find out makes you question what they have. Things like:
Let's look at an example from NPR. They provide a standard of quality, background on what they do, guiding values, and even include their handbook.
Not every website has a following of people who have something to say about that organization, business, service...whatever the website offers or promises. There will be times when you can't find any external commentary about a website, and there are times that you don't need to dig too deep. The nature of your information need can drive your review of the source and how far to dig.
A few quick examples:
Not every research questions is one that required deep analysis of the website. What you already know and what you need to know will guide how much you need to look for.
Lateral reading is the process of looking around at other sources to make judgements about a particular source. This means looking up that source online and reading what other people have to say about it. How good is their reporting? Do other people corroborate the story or points being made? This is something you can do before you even look at your target source and can be a way to get a sense of their probably accuracy.
Let's review strategies through an example. Here's a video found from RT Global News from 2021. It shows footage of the explosion at Israel's oil refinery plant. Our mission is to get some facts about this information, and we also want to get some information about this source.
Looking at the "more" section about what's going on in the footage, we see this this comment: "IMPORTANT! None of these images, music & video clips were created/owned by us. This video is purely fan-made, if you (owners) have seen your content and want to remove this video, please message us privately before doing anything. We will respectfully remove it immediately." Hmmm, so it sounds like they found some footage on the internet and turned it into a video without owner permissions and then posted it with a comment to just let them know if you don't want them using your footage. What can we tell from this? Not footage from their own journalist team, probably not fact-checked, and questionable ethical practices. Some early red flags.
Let's look up what RT is. RT says "it creates news with an edge for viewers who want to Question More" and includes "stories overlooked by the mainstream media." That sounds like they wouldn't be opposed to a conspiracy theory when it drove up clicks and they are covering their backs by saying: don't blame us if you don't see it reported anywhere else.
Through some Googling, reading the Wikipedia summary, and taking a look at those citations, we find that this is a "state-controlled international news network funded by the Russian government." Knowledge that the Kremlin controls this news source is enough to discount it on grounds of disinformation and heavy bias. However, since we're here, why not get a little more background on this source. Now we search for: RT news disinformation source. We see quite a few reputable sources showing more background about the extent of disinformation they are responsible for, and what a history it is.
You can do lateral reading on anything. You can use it to:
When in doubt, it never hurts to look around at other sources and learn more about the sources you're reading from.
On occasion, yes, traditional news sources have reported highly inaccurate or even wholly false stories. Stephen Glass was an up-and-coming journalist with The New Republic, a well-established liberal magazine, who fabricated dozens of stories in the mid-1990s. Despite going to some length to cover his tracks, including creating a bogus (but rudimentary) website for a fictional software company in one of his stories and recruiting his brother to impersonate a source, he was eventually exposed and fired after an investigation by a suspicious rival publication, Forbes, and Glass' own editor, Chuck Lane. Buzz Bissinger of Vanity Fair wrote about this episode in a 1998 article, "Shattered Glass," which became the basis of a 2003 film starring Hayden Christensen in the title role.
However, Glass operated in an era when searching for information on the Web was perhaps not as fluid as it is today. His story is a reminder that information (especially of the sensational, crowd-pleasing variety) that cannot be verified or corroborated using other sources should be treated with skepticism.
The scenario: You found an article in The Conversation about dark stars. It seems pretty good. Use some of the strategies from this area to investigate this source.
When darkness shines: How dark stars could illuminate the early universe
Tips for getting started:
The words you use to search is all about semantics, and in this case, semantics matter. Let's look at an example.
We heard there were some tax-related benefits connected to education and want to learn more. We start off with a simple search for "tax relief."
The results show some general guidance for groups, as well as some details about benefits for dealing with tax credits related to property damage from natural disaster. They're general, but not super specific. Let's rephrase this to be "tax reductions."
Side trial: the term "tax relief" was not used prior to the early 2000s and was introduced by George W. Bush. As part of his campaign to earn favor with the middle class, he needed a way for people to think of the tax cuts he was pushing (mostly for the wealthy) could be viewed as freeing and unburdening by people outside that class. By using terms like "relief", this immediately interprets taxes as a burden, unnecessary, or without benefit. Whereas terms like "tax break" or "tax cut" feel more like preferential treatment. To learn more, check out George Lakoff's book Don't Think of an Elephant.
With that change, now we're seeing more specific terms like deduction, exemptions, and credits, as well as more advice areas.
There are a variety of ways to explain or describe anything and everything. Those differences influence what the results look like because they contain nuanced differences. Using a variety of approaches when you're thinking about how to articulate the research topic can help you get balanced results.
Subjectivity is "the influence of personal beliefs or feelings, rather than facts" [Cambridge Dictionary]. Regardless of whether the claim, fact, whatever is actually subjective information, you will see a variety of instances where people treat that topic subjectively.
Let's look at an example from a contested area. If you searched for Israel and Palestine in 2024, you would find:
Knowledge of the war in Gaza will influence your understanding of why some areas are not being recognized, and by who. For topics where you know you're dealing with subjective interpretations, you can seek out more information about the issue to balance your understanding of what's actually happening or what happened. Some questions you might ask, include:
Example idea credit:
Richard M. Cho. Information in the Age of Infocracy.
Since we can only think through our own lens, getting a balance of viewpoints means actively seeking out other perspectives. What that looks like in action means:
The scenario: You're researching perspectives about funding for police and would like to better understand arguments for defunding the police and what that actually means. What are some keywords you could use to help get articles that would give you a balanced perspective?
Tips for getting started:
Materials created and shared to promote a specific agenda have been a constant throughout history. Current day examples of propaganda are most commonly connected to a political agenda. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, propaganda is:
"The systematic dissemination of information, esp. in a biased or misleading way, in order to promote a particular cause or point of view, often a political agenda." [1]
The definition from Britanica also highlights the deliberate nature of propaganda and the emphasis on spinning facts to influence public opinion:
"Propaganda is the dissemination of information—facts, arguments, rumours, half-truths, or lies—to influence public opinion. Deliberateness and a relatively heavy emphasis on manipulation distinguish propaganda from casual conversation or the free and easy exchange of ideas." [2]
[1] Oxford University Press. (n.d.). Propaganda, n., 3. In Oxford English dictionary. Retrieved November 26, 2025, from https://doi.org/10.1093/OED/3478124451
[2] Smith, B.L. (2025, October 28). propaganda. Encyclopedia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/topic/propaganda
It is true that you can have content that is false, misleading, or half-true and is not propaganda. What distinguishing propaganda and makes it more nuanced is that its goal includes manipulating public opinion. This is bigger than fooling a few thousand people with a fake video. This is changing, challenging, or tweaking public perspective through manipulative tactics.
Propaganda can take many forms and formats. It can also show up in different places promoting a similar message or sentiment. Let's take an example from the tobacco industry, c.1931.
What's going on in this poster? What does this poster make you feel? What does it imply?
Yes, Lucky is just a brand, but it was part of a larger tobacco industry and it was in all those businesses best interests to sell as many cigarettes as they could. As a group they promoted smoking by capitalizing on a common set of emotions and feelings through individual brand advertising.
There are abundant examples of propaganda use throughout history. Below are a few examples:
From left to right: French WWI propaganda, American WWII propaganda, American anti-Catholic propaganda. All images courtesy of Wikimedia Commons.
There are many examples from history of the U.S. government and groups have used propaganda tactics to manipulate a narrative. A few examples include:
A current non-U.S. example includes: RT News (Russian state-controlled media outlet) heavily features news about the Gaza War to draw attention away from their own war with Ukraine.
Propaganda is often subtle. It doesn't want you to know you're being manipulated because then your brain would say, "wait a minute, something seems fishy." Sometimes it's not clear how you're being manipulated. Other times it can be extremely opaque and clear what messages are being sent.
Let's look at an example that deals with messaging about the government shut down via government websites in October of 2025. At least 8 different agencies changed their alert banners to include some derivative of the message: "The Radical Left in Congress shut down the government. HUD will use available resources to help Americans in need." Here's an example from the Center for Disease Control from the Way Back Machine where the message says "The Trump Administration is working to reopen the government for the American people. Mission-critical activities of the CDC will continue during the Democrat-led government shutdown":
What's going on here?
Another layer for understanding this propaganda is the context that the Trump Administration implemented massive cuts to CDC staff in April of 2025 and then again in October during the shutdown. Posting a message emphasizing the "mission-critical" nature of CDC work is in direct conflict with actions that undermine their work.
Learn more about this particular propaganda example from the article "When government websites become campaign tools: Blaming the shutdown on Democrats has legal and political risks" by The Conversation.
The scenario: The Department of Education posted a press release about ending the "Biden Book Ban Hoax" on January 24, 2025.
Satire is created to amuse, critique, or offer parody and has a long literary history [1]. It uses wit and humor to reveal weakness, folly, or wrongdoing. It can make the subject look ridiculous, and serve to discredit the target.
You'll see satire show up in websites created for humorous writing and satire (e.g. The Onion, Babylon Bee, McSweeney's), late night comedy shows (e.g. SNL), political comics, or real news that's been re-flowed (Harpers Weekly Review which "collates and reflows news from the past seven days into a satirical chronicle.. tak[ing] aim at the relentless absurdity of the 24-hour news cycle.")
[1] Gottlieb, Evan. "What is Satire?" Oregon State Guide to English Literary Terms, 16 Aug. 2019, Oregon State University, https://liberalarts.oregonstate.edu/wlf/what-satire. Accessed November 26, 2025.
The Onion is a well-known example of satire. Its stories have sometimes been cited or recycled as serious news (as was the case in the 2012 case of a conservative congressman who posted a story about an $8-billion Planned Parenthood "Abortionplex" on his Facebook page).
The Onion's Latin motto, "Tu stultus es," simply translates to "You are stupid."
You may have seen the non-profit designation attributed to organizations that you run across online. They may also say they are a 5019(c)(3) organization. What does that mean?
Non-profit status is attributed to "Organizations organized and operated exclusively for religious, charitable, scientific, testing for public safety, literary, educational, or other specified purposes and that meet certain other requirements are tax exempt under Internal Revenue Code Section 501(c)(3)." [irs.gov]
Okay, cool. Why are we talking about this designation? Well you might be surprised by who can qualify as a non-profit. Did you know this can also include political organizations under 527 and business leagues (501(c)(6))? Did you know that the Alamo Yacht Club Inc. was a non-profit? (Until 2010 when they didn't file a Form 990-series for 3 years).
Here's the point: there are a lot of great non-profit organizations doing great work out there.
However, knowing what you know now, just because something says it's a non-profit, doesn't mean it deserves a carte blanche pass if it has other indicators that would make you question it.
While there are many quality non-profit organizations out there, there are also some that may have a more questionable mission.
Let's look at an example non-profit together: the American Sugar Cane League.
This website tells us that: "The American Sugar Cane League of the U.S.A., Inc. is a non-profit organization of Louisiana sugarcane growers and processors. We are dedicated to supporting the Louisiana sugar industry through research, legislation, product promotion, education, and public relations." They also mention that they are "active in legislative matters on the state and national levels."
Interesting. What does active in legislative matters mean? Let's head over to OpenSecrets to see what we can learn about their political activities.
According to data in November of 2025, PAC affiliate (Political Action Committees connected to this group) had donated $870,604 to supporting political campaigns.
They were also putting $190K toward lobby efforts in 2024.
Yes, according to their website and the IRS, they are a non-profit. However, knowing more about their background, you might be more critical on what you find from them.
Like other websites you might want to review or you have questions about, you can look them up through lateral reading techniques. This means looking elsewhere on the web to learn more about the organization or site that's NOT written by them.
Another approach is to look up a non-profit through the IRS tax exempt organizations database. By searching for an organization's name, you can see whether they are registered for that designation and the status--an organization might get their status revoked if they never file with the IRS.
Here's what we find when we look up the American Sugar Cane League through the database. They are listed, actively filing, and digging further we can find out that they count for a 50% tax deduction on donations to this organization.
The scenario: Your uncle heard about a charity that turned out to be a scam (maybe), but it could also help foster kids. What's the deal with Diamond Jym Ranch Inc.?
Tips for getting started:
As the name might suggest, click-bait is a hook to get you to click or read more. The "bait" piece is that it doesn't follow through on whatever the promise was. Similar to other forms of misinformation, this type of disingenuous content distorts fact, or deals in outright falsehoods, to achieve an emotional effect, rather than to inform or educate.
Yellow Journalism
Yellow journalism is a term used to refer to unethical, sensationalistic reporting. Historically, it has most often been applied to the practices of William Randolph Hearst's and (ironically, given that his name has become synonymous with excellence in journalism) Joseph Pulitzer's competing New York-based newspaper empires in the 1890s, especially leading up to the 1898 Spanish-American War (S. Kobre, "The Yellow Press and Gilded Age Journalism," 1964).
Tabloid Journalism
Tabloid journalism is a term more familiar to most Americans. It is similar to yellow journalism; perhaps the main difference is that it is less likely to focus on major news stories and more likely to feature headlines on celebrity gossip and purported bizarre occurrences. A prominent (if extreme) example is The National Enquirer:
Image originally found at Malialitman.com (no longer accessible).
