To find the truth about a topic, it is important to find out from the original source. The source is where the information originated, not necessarily where you heard it from. For example, if you see data quoted in a news story that was posted by your contact on social media, the source is not the reporter, the news organization, your contact, the social media platform or even the data itself. The organization where the data originated is the original source and the only place you can go to verify the accuracy of the data. For example, if research data was quoted from a study by Pew Research, then you must go to the Pew Research website to look at the original data set and check to see if it lines up with how the reporter quoted it in the story. This still is not a perfect way to check the original source since you are then depending on not only your own interpretation of the data set but also the organization (Pew Research in this example) to have correctly and ethically compiled and conveyed the data set for your perusal. Often, the data that is quoted by organizations is not available (either fully or partially) on the internet for anyone to examine, but some data sets are.

Another example is if you read something that was quoted from a Supreme Court case. You can view and read the entire case with commentary from both sides on the website of the U.S. Supreme Court. You can also listen to the recording of the full case being heard by the Supreme Court justices and read the entire transcript to verify the conclusions and/or quotations you read in a story online.

While this type of verification from the source can take some time, often the original data is made available for examination by the public if you want to take the time to look for it.

Another way to search for an original source to verify or clarify something you heard or read online is to request the original records that may not be posted online. In some states, such as Texas and Florida, most records (including all emails) from any governmental agency are considered “public record” and are available to the public for inspection upon request. To do so, see the agency’s website for a description of how to request public records from that agency. In theory, a copy of the records should be sent to you for inspection expediently at no charge (with some exceptions which are listed on the state’s website). But unfortunately, those who may have something to hide may not always turn over “all records” or do so in an “expedient” manner as is required. But you can still request the records and can report to the state if some or all are withheld from your request to inspect the documents. As we discussed in previous chapters, if someone wants to hide information rather than reveal the data or evidence about a situation, it can be a sign that they have something to hide.

In the previous chapters, we discussed the importance of looking for the original data source to verify the correctness of information. We also discussed examining other words and deeds from the person conveying the information. But it is equally important to avoid believing stories about a person without hearing their side of the story. This is true for written words about someone, such as in a news story, or spoken words that someone tells you about someone else.

For example, if someone either says or writes something about someone else, try to find out if it is true directly from the person it is about. This can be through asking them directly (if you have the resources and opportunity to do so) or seeking to hear their view of the situation from their social media, or in another way contacting them to hear their own account of the situation. If someone said something negative or untrue about you, wouldn’t you want the opportunity to give your side of the story as well? In many cases, if there are untrue negative words about a person, they may not even be aware that the untrue information is being said about them. Or they may be aware but may have not had the opportunity to defend themselves from the untrue information.

Remember from the previous chapter that one of the best ways to determine intentional from accidental falsehood is to go directly to the person to ask about it? Similarly, one of the best ways to determine if information about someone is correct or false is to go directly to them to ask for their account of a situation or information. While they could, of course, lie and say that it is untrue, if they don’t want to talk about it or are angry that you asked about it, it may be that the information is true since most people would want the opportunity to defend themselves against false information if it was not true. But although that cannot be a definite manner of determining truth from lies, it is still worth giving someone the opportunity to give their side of the story. If nothing else, then because of the Golden Rule, which says to “Do to others what you would have them do to you,” and you would probably not want people to say negative things about you without at least providing the opportunity to give your side of the story if you wanted to.

How do you know?

Even if everyone around you believes something negative about a person or situation, that doesn’t make it true if it isn’t actually true. So, in addition to trying to find out from the original source, which is not always possible, ask “how do you know” if someone says something. For example, if someone says or writes something negative or scandalous about a person or situation, try to find out what they are basing this information on. Is it hearsay? Hearsay is what someone heard/read that someone else said, and since it is not based on actual facts, it is unlikely to be trustworthy. If something is written or said based primarily on someone’s opinion of someone else, it is not trustworthy information. If you are searching for truthful information, you should not believe anything without asking “how do you know” and then basing belief on actual facts (not false facts) and going to the original source. If someone tells you something in a conversation, ask them “how do you know?” and listen to find out if it is based on hearsay (someone else’s opinion) or false fact (inconclusive or distorted evidence) or actual facts.

Fact-check the facts at the original source

Go to the original source (the person or organization that the information is about) whenever possible, to find factual information about that topic or person. Ask the questions that can reveal the truth about the topic and then listen for truth with an open mind, to see whether they provide facts to support their side of the story or not. If the “facts” presented are not supported with actual evidence or if they conflict with the facts presented by those on other side of the story, then investigate further before placing your belief in one side of the story or the other.

When you go to the original source, you do not need to believe everything that person or organization says either but do your best to find out the basis for their side of the story. Is it based on actual facts or false facts (which is really just opinion or misinterpreted facts)? If it does not seem to be based on solid and conclusive evidence, do not believe it at this point but keep searching for more actual facts before believing that information.

For example, a positive testimonial about a company that is written on the company’s own website is not an actual fact or opinion, but possibly just their own promotional material. If information is fact-checked by a third party, it is still inconclusive since many third-party sources have their own agenda and promotional relationship with companies. Such as, if fact checkers are hired by the company that they are fact checking about/for, they will be very likely to support the company’s desired side of a cause (political, financial or otherwise). Or, if they share the same political ideology, their fact checking is highly likely to be skewed toward supporting that political viewpoint. Always consider whether the “facts” might not be actual facts but rather an opinion-based situation (such as third-party fact checking, self-promotion, political part support). If they are opinion-based to any extent, consider the views to be opinion rather than fact, since they are not based on actual facts. Then continue to search for actual facts from the original source, bypassing opinion-based “false facts” in your effort to do so.

Listen to hear if someone’s words are consistent with their actions

If someone says one thing yet does the opposite, this is a warning flag. Someone who says they are honest or upright yet are consistently acting in ways that contradict their words should not be believed to be telling the truth. This is about consistency of word and action rather than about a specific belief system. If someone says that they will do such and such and yet their actions do not follow their words, then you should not believe that their words will be true in other situations either, since their words have not shown to be consistent with their actions. This is one of the primary ways to know if you should believe someone’s words or not: look for consistency of words with their actions to indicate trustworthiness. However, this consistency only indicates intention not truth. Since someone can consistently believe something that is not true or accurate, and their actions can follow that. But if the opposite is true, they tend to say one thing but do the opposite, then you know you should not believe them since they are inconsistent even within their own actions.

This principle should always be taken with the consideration that no one is perfect or perfectly consistent and even well-intentioned people do not always follow their words with the intended actions (nor can anyone perfectly do this at all times). But use this principle to use caution with people whose words consistently say something other than what they actually do. For example, if a team leader says they are leading the team with fairness and yet their actions demonstrate that they are picking on one person unfairly, their actions do not follow their words and thus they discredit themselves. Their other words should not be trusted to be true either since they have shown inconsistency between word and action.

Recognize libel as untrue defamation of a person’s character

Defamation of someone’s character means to “defame” or damage someone’s good reputation. However, even if a person does not have an overall good reputation, defamation indicates that someone’s reputation was lessened through the use of untrue information. If the information is true then it is not defamation since information cannot wrongly damage someone’s good reputation by others finding out true information, only false information. If the information is true, it is not defamation but information.

Both libel and slander are forms of defamation, but libel is found in print, and slander is found in speech. Defamation can be through spoken words that are false and damaging to another person’s reputation, which is called slander. Or written or published words that are false and damaging or convey an unjustly unfavorable impression, which is called libel (Merriam-Webster Dictionary).

In either situation, the words must be false and have the potential to defame or damage a person’s reputation. If the words are true, they cannot be defamation, either libel or slander.

Example: Crown v. John Peter Zenger, 1735

The case that set the groundwork of the freedom of the press, by establishing that: Truth is an absolute defense against libel (Historical Society of the New York Courts, 2024).

In 1735 – the John Peter Zenger case established that “The Truth” is an absolute defense against charges of libel. Zenger was the printer for “The New York Weekly Journal” in which was published opinions critical of New York Governor William Cosby, including “articles, satire and lampoons, accused the Cosby administration of tyranny and violation of the people’s rights.” The governor then ordered “an examination of the newspaper for statements that constituted the crime of seditious libel.” The idea was that the governor had already decided that Zenger was guilty since he printed the paper that had challenged the governor, but the governor still needed to “find evidence” somewhere. “Seditious libel was defined as the intentional publication, without lawful excuse or justification, of written blame of any public man or of the law, or any institution established by the law.” Even though the printer had not written the articles, the governor felt that if the printer (Zenger) was found guilty then the paper would be shut down (but Zenger’s wife and apprentices continued to print the paper, only one issue was missed). The governor accused Zenger of libel in 1734, but the jury acquitted Zenger (twice). This case was the groundwork of freedom of the press, rather than the legal precedent. Only in 1805 was a law passed that recognized truth as a defense against a charge of libel.

Don’t join in bullying

listen to that person’s perspective as you would want someone to do for you

Even if everyone around you believes something negative about someone, that doesn’t make it true if it isn’t actually true. Even if there are multiple stories or news articles online about someone or a situation, that doesn’t automatically make it true if it isn’t actually true. What are the actual facts? What potential motivations might someone have for writing negative words about another person or situation if they are not completely true, or portraying someone or something as different than reality?

When searching for the truth about a person or situation, don’t join in or support a negative attack against someone since it may be someone else’s fight and may be a libelous attack if it is based on unfounded accusations or someone’s personal opinion of someone else. Always consider how you would want someone else to act towards you if you were the one who a group of others were treating poorly or differently. I believe it is likely that you would inevitably want someone to give you a fair chance and not consider you guilty without any valid evidence or considering your character. That doesn’t mean that everyone is innocent of the accusations when a group of people believes something negative, but it means giving someone a fair chance by not joining in with an unfounded attack and instead listening to their side of the story with an open mind.

It is wise to avoid joining in any attack or shunning of another person, especially if someone or a group is pressuring you to join in against another individual or group. Why are they pressuring this negative treatment? What do they hope to gain from it?