The first step towards finding the truth is knowing where to look. The internet is tremendously huge and still growing with informational content. How can we be sure that what we are reading or watching is genuine and accurate?

There are a few key steps that can help you to narrow down content effectively.

Search in valid places

There are some ways to know if the location is valid. You can search for signs of validity according to the following tips.

Website validity:

First, check the website address to see if it sounds legitimate. Many organizations have official sounding addresses that end in “.com” or “.org” rather than “.net” or other extension. For example, if it ends with a “.org” it is more likely (although not guaranteed) to be an organization rather than scammers. However, scammers often use a similar-sounding web address that almost matches the official website name (such as including an “s” on the end of the name or spelling the company name or web address slightly differently). Look into it as a first clue, but not a final word on the legitimacy of the website. Rule of thumb: if anything about the address sounds fishy, it very well might be.

Company validity:

Check the “about” page that is on most websites to hear who the organization says they are. Sometimes there can be clues there that let you know it is not the organization they say they are (such as a misspelled city name or a location that does not match the address, or wording that sounds off). Then check the other pages for professionalism and consistency. Again, you are looking for clues to see if anything is off, not a guarantee of legitimacy. For example, when looking for a roofing company locally, I found a website that sounded great and had great photos. Additionally, the “About” page sounded like they could handle any project, and the customer quotes on the online local review page for their business sounded great as well. But then I noticed a review that said they actually stole the other businesses’ info and photos from their work. I compared both sites that had similar business names and were in the same city, and sure enough, the website for the other business appeared to be more legitimate even though it looked less professionally produced. On the false site, the photos of work completed did not match up with the wording of what they said they could produce and their number to call was not local. The site that seemed more legitimate appeared to have photos and work that matched, local phone numbers, the names, address, and bio of the owner, and even a job listing. This checked out as a valid business website.

Company proficiency:

However, the other aspect to check is whether the company is proficient, or a good company to work with/for. This can also be challenging since reviews on their own website are written or chosen to promote their own company’s reputation. Thus, their own website reviews cannot be taken as objective. Third-party reviews can be more telling, such as local review sites. However, some do allow content deletes and there is also the consideration that many people who have a negative experience react in ways other than reviews: such as, sharing their opinion with their own contacts by word-of-mouth (or social media); taking their future business elsewhere; or even seeking legal solutions to alleviate the impact of negative experiences with a company. So, although seeking other people’s opinions on a company can be helpful, it is again, just clues.

Search in unexpected places:

Sometimes the best way to find truth and validity is to search in places other than the obvious, especially when seeking to find out information that may have been left out or hidden from the masses. To do so, think of expert or official sources of information, or even individuals who may have a reputation for sharing legitimate information or can share the sought information firsthand. Verifying validity is particularly important when seeking information in less-expected places, or at least “take it with a grain of salt” (be aware of the possibility that it may not be valid, and thus treat the information accordingly, with caution).

Seek expertise, and don’t fall for persuasion

When looking for truth, it is important to always stay on your guard against persuasion. Persuasive communication is as old as time, but has taken different forms throughout history. Persuasive communication is that which has the intention to compel action of some type. Propaganda is the term for historical persuasion by leadership towards a desired goal.  It has also been used for other types of persuasive communication as well, but since a negative connotation began to develop, it has been replaced in recent years with other terms, such as political communication, public relations, business communication or strategic communication. “To some extent, the rhetorical turn toward ‘strategic communication’ is a ploy by promotional industries to rebrand their work… practitioners today may wish to unburden themselves of terms like public relations, using strategic communication as a relatively unsullied alternative” (Wood & Aronczyk, 2020). The term “strategic communication” has become a replacement in recent years, which typically denotes information that has an agenda (Zerfass et al., 2018).

If you are examining the facts and you decide to agree with one side, do so intentionally rather than falling for persuasive materials or wording. For example, if you are considering buying a new car, you can investigate the facts of the vehicle’s track record, performance, safety, features, and then possibly read some consumer reviews to hear about the experiences of others with the product before making your choice to purchase. However, if you decide to purchase the vehicle based off a commercial or advertisement, you would be giving in to persuasion rather than seeking the facts to make your own decision. If you first see the ad and are interested, but then set aside your emotional reaction (or the pull) to first search out the true facts before purchasing, then the ad served the purpose of interesting you rather than persuading you.

When you are doing your best to carefully guard against making decisions under persuasion (which isn’t always easy to do), then you can effectively search for expert opinions from those who are sharing fact rather than attempting to persuade. Sometimes, however, it can be difficult to differentiate between those who are attempting to persuade using the “expert” label and those without an agenda who are just sharing expertise. The more you can identify between the two, the more likely you are to be able to find the truth.  Also note that “expertise” does not guarantee fact. The experts are not always correct, and the knowledge base of a society is continually changing. Keep this in mind as you seek expertise, do not overlook the facts. Throughout history there have been those who were wrong, and many times it was the accepted perspective that was inaccurate, or the experts of their time who were either resistant to change with the newly discovered knowledge or who were too quick to let go of historical time-tested knowledge. Wise truth-seeking is open to adaptation with newly discovered facts, yet at the same does not toss out proven knowledge without a tested factual basis for doing so.

Example

The experts missed newly discovered knowledge based on facts in the discovery of germs transmitting disease from doctors who did not wash their hands in between treatment of patients. Prior to the presentation of “germ theory” in 1878 by Louis Pasteur, the cause and prevention of infections was largely unknown. But during that time period, a physician, Ignaz Semmelveis, introduced the concept of antiseptics for use in prevention of a deadly infection (puerperal or childbed fever) in hospitalized women after childbirth (Best & Neuhauser, 2004). After graduating from Vienna University in 1844, the Hungarian physician worked in an obstetric clinic at the Allgemeine Krankenhaus teaching hospital in Vienna and noticed that the levels of infection and post-delivery mortality were much higher in the ward where medical students provided care (13 – 18% mortality) than in the ward where care was provided by midwives (2% mortality). When his friend who was a doctor died of the fever as well, he theorized that since it wasn’t just women in childbirth who were contracting the fever, maybe the students were carrying something to the women. He noticed that the students would often go directly from performing an autopsy to delivering a baby and did not care to wash their hands or clothing in between. He also noticed that the midwifery unit required cleanliness and even inspected the midwives’ fingernails to be sure they were extremely clean before caring for the women. His theory was based on noticing these differences between the clinics and he then proceeded to test his theory. After requiring that students wash their hands and then dip their hands into a chlorinated solution before delivering a baby, the mortality rate dropped from 18.27 to 1.27 in 1848 in the division under his care. However, even though the facts supported his conclusion with a substantial outcome, his superior was not supportive and did not agree with his policies despite the positive outcome of his work.

Additionally, his political participation in Vienna that year were held against him as he was removed from his position at the clinic in 1849. He applied for several other positions at the clinic, including a teaching post at the midwifery clinic. He was turned down until he gave a successful lecture at the Medical Society of Vienna about his work on puerperal fever, then he applied again and was offered the midwifery teaching position but with restrictions that would have been humiliating to his position. He went on to teach elsewhere but the resistance of his superiors to accept new ideas effected Vienna as well. The fever continued with high mortality rates from 10 to 15%, while he worked at the St. Rochus Hospital in Pest, Hungary, where his measures helped to bring down mortality rates from an epidemic to an average of 0.85 during his six years there.

The “experts” and many others were resistant to consider change even with evidence. Combined with political persecution, this outlook became an obstacle to the receiving of life-saving truth in this situation.

Don’t believe hearsay, follow up with real facts:

If someone said they “heard” that something (or someone) was or wasn’t good, or true, or reputable, always ask for “the facts” before believing the hearsay. Hearsay is just that: something that you hear (or read) that someone said, but that does not necessarily make it true or factual. Always ask for the facts but then also verify the facts by going to the SOURCE. If someone tells you something negative about someone (or you see something online), this is not the time to get a second opinion since that would not necessarily mean that the information is true, but instead, go directly to that person or source (if possible) and ask them about it to determine if it is true. Then, consider any conflicting information in the same way as you would online information that is conflicting: consider if there are any false statements be either party, consider if either of them may have an agenda to say something false or to try to paint another in a negative light, consider if the story lines up accurately with what you already know, and then be sure to avoid being persuaded by persona, group or title, since those things alone do not necessarily equate accuracy or truth. Take into consideration each person’s reputation, are either of them known for truth or for persuasive messaging? If they are known to twist facts or attempt to persuade, take into consideration that this time they may be doing that as well.

Don’t fall for false facts:

Some “facts” are not actually factual, but material designed to try to persuade an audience about a topic. For example, if something is presented as a fact, take the following steps to check the facts: First, look for the citation of the primary source, is there a source listed as to where the facts were referenced from? If so, does it sound like a reputable name? If so, is there a link to it or does it come up in a search? If so, does the website appear to be from a reputable organization? If so, examine the data presented: is it recent and does it appear to be reputable? If so, compare the data with the original article: does their use of the data appear to be factual as used for the topic or did they misquote or misread any of the data? At this point, you will be able to more accurately verify (or discredit) the original source listed in the original article. The next step is to search for a second opinion to back up (or challenge) the data from the source you just read (see below).

Get a second opinion:

For a medical diagnosis, it is classic advice to “get a second opinion” to either backup or discredit the first source in case there is an error, before having any treatment done. Before believing information online, it is recommended to search for a second opinion on the facts as well, or the “other side of the story,” whenever you possibly can.

The search for the second opinion is an important step to avoid falling for false facts since the second opinion can either contradict or complement the first. However, it is important that the second opinion is another primary data SOURCE not just another news story, since many news stories are based off the same material, such as a news release or a story from another news outlet or the wire.

To search for a second opinion on the facts, search for another primary data source on the topic. If it is a political topic, consider searching for a source that would be considered valid by one party and then a different source that may be considered valid by the other party (for topics within the U.S. two-party system). In this way, you can more thoroughly evaluate the political influence of your sources on the topic, and potentially find out if there is flawed, missing or misconstrued data on either (or both) sides of the topic. To search for a second opinion effectively, it is important that you put aside your own political views to be able to accurately examine the facts from both data sources impartially without preemptively taking sides. If you just look for accuracy and set aside politics, you can often effectively fact check.