How to do good fact check online

 

1. Go straight to the source. Yesterday, while fact checking a story on new type of neurons discovered behind the retina, we read the university press release, and other articles about the discovery. Then, we clicked on the journal where the paper was published. Then, we clicked on the supplementary information submitted by the study authors. That is where we realised that the study was conducted on mice, not humans. Nowhere, not in the press release, not in the articles, nowhere was it mentioned that the study is only at the first stage (mice). That is how painful fact check is and how obfuscating even supposedly scientific articles are.
2. When reporting on indices, ranks, etc., go and check what is the methodology of the study or how is the index compiled. Don’t trust any rank or index until you understand how the number was derived.
3. When reading about a contentious issue, always read publications that give both sides of the story. For Lakshadweep, the major news channels reported that the locals are being tormented by the administration. But when I read the official records and the small publications that had dared to publish the other side of the story (and Quora), i realised that the real story was actually quite different. For Delhi’s pollution, we blame the parali or the crackers, but Delhi has as many as 3 thermal power plants within its territory and arguably Asia’s largest informal e waste recycling industry which burns the phones in open air. No one tells you that.
4. Trust nothing that is “proposed” or “will be done”. That is not news. That is fortune telling. After it is done and operational, it becomes news.

5 tips to ensure that you hear the truth, and nothing but the truth

One day, all the publications of India suddenly went berserk at about 7 p.m., screaming loudly - Trump to reduce H1B Visa curbs. 
Since we were about to start writing the stories for the next day's paper shortly, the editor naturally assumed that this would be a part of our newspaper the next day. 

But, when we sat down to write the story, we all were, at first, incredulous, and then, we burst out laughing. 

Trump had not made anything easier. He was not going to make anything easier. All that had happened was a Tweet of - wait for it - intent. One of those millions of intentions that politicians keep casting upon our collective consciousness like bread upon water. 

And the entire Indian media made it their headline! 

Another time, a short range service was inaugurated for the first time, joining two important places in India. Obviously, we were super excited and wanted to cover this. Until we did the fact check and realised that it was not so much inaugurate as restart. The service was actually inaugurated the previous year. Subsequently, no helicopter was available and the service was quietly closed, only to be "inaugurated" the following year "For the first time ever." 

Not surprisingly, we were possibly the only medium to use the words "Inaugurated again" in our headline that morning. 

For more than three years now, we have made fact checking our business. Sometimes, it leads to hilarious outcomes like the two incidents mentioned above. More often than that, however, it leads to changing the story at midnight. 

So, in this post, I am going to share another little secret of ours - especially if you are a young reader trying to make sense of the online news world. 

Why are we writing this for you? 

Many of you now have research as a part of your school work. I am sure that you face the same issue as we do - how to ensure that we get, analyse, and put accurate information/data in our reports? 

If you are an adult, am sure that you care for true news and are sick of the fact that the media is not reliable any more. Fact check is a super power that all of us need to have, because we are bombarded with half truths from absolutely everyone around us - our media, family, friends, and Whatsapp. 

So, here is our Secret Sauce for Fact Checks. 

1. Close to the Source 

Where is the water of a river purest? Closest to the source. The same is true of news too. The closer you get to the source, the more accurate your data is going to be. 

Last week, I was working on a research report on castor oil exports from India. Google took me to an industry website from which I took the numbers of castor oil exports from 2019 to 2020. 

But that is not how we normally do this. Google simply did not take me to any official site where any of these numbers were available. The data silence was deafening. 

Later in the night, I decided to use DuckDuckGo. The first search result was of the industry body that actually has the exporters. They had a report that was from DGFT - Director General of Foreign Trade - Govt. of India and industry official numbers. 

The numbers given here told a slightly different story for the years 2019-2020, but when I saw the trend from 2017 onwards, my eyes literally popped out.

If you are doing your research, go as close as possible to the source. 
Wherever there is an official resource, take that, unless you have strong reasons to doubt the veracity of that data. Raw data does not lie as much as reports, in my humble opinion. 

2. Kipling to the Rescue 

Rudyard Kipling wrote a beautiful poem that starts like this: 

I KEEP six honest serving-men
 (They taught me all I knew);
Their names are What and Why and When
 And How and Where and Who.

We use the same 6 honest serving men. 

When you get information over Whatsapp, or any other such reliable source, all you need to do is ask the 6 questions. If you get answers to all 6, you are likely dealing with the truth. If not, you are probably dealing with propaganda.  

This is really, really important. Because all propaganda comes cloaked in numbers and facts and figures and conspiratorial tones like "But What really happened was..." "Bet you didn't know about this. So-and-so (whatever their label for media) will not tell you this." 

Let's say you get a report that says - India has the most Parsis living in a single country, and therefore India has become like their first home now. 

Great! Let's ask a few questions: 

A. Where else do we have Parsis in the world, and how many are there in each country? 

B. What is the source of this data? (For India, the last official population data is ONLY 9 years old- the 2011 Census) 

C. Who has prepared this report? And for whom? (Who is the audience?) 

D. Why have they prepared this report? 

E. When was this report compiled? 

F. How was this report put together? Who all collaborated on this? 

And these are the questions only on the first part of the report - India has the most Parsis living in a single country. There is a second part to that statement - first home now. You get the drift. 

3. NOT from a single source 

One night, we were writing about a development metric from India. As a rule, we check from 2-3 sources, and one of the sources we used for the checking was an international respected orgn. Now, we always find some divergence between numbers from multiple sources (remember Tip 1 above?), but in this case,  they were so divergent that we had to either find a way to explain the numbers, or not carry the feature at all. That was the time we did a night out on the numbers. And understood that though both numbers are national, their data gathering methodology and sample sizes are vastly different. In a country as complex and huge as India, that can mean a world of difference. Once we knew that the core data sets were different, we were able to decide which number we wanted to go with. 

This will sound counter to the first tip - but its important. Even if you go very close to the source, ALWAYS double check with an external entity that does NOT report from the same source. You will ALWAYS get a difference in the numbers, even if it is one decimal point. But you will. 

Sometimes, you will get a HUGE difference. This is most likely when comparing a nation's data on something like GDP or development indicators. The national data will give one picture, an international body like WHO or World Bank Indicators will have another number. 

Same thing for research stories - one press story will present it another way, the University's own press release will show one thing. But if you go to some peer reviewed journals that hold some of the earlier work on that research, you will get some additional... facts. 

4. The Devil is STILL in the details 

One evening,  all the news websites ran news that a certain company was going to build a certain important building. The editor chose that story for the edition. When the edition came to me for review, I did a little fact check. Then, I called the writer back and asked, "Is this award of contract, or signing of contract?" 

"What's the difference?" she asked. (It was well past midnight) 

"The signing of a contract is a legal step. Both parties are bound by it. Award of contract is a step in the procurement process. It means that they have won the bidding war. After this, a long negotiation, verification, and due diligence will be done, after which the draft agreement will be created, then a draft contract, and finally the contract will be signed." 

I am sure that she did not like me as she got back on her laptop and checked. 15 minutes later, I heard back from her - "It is just award of contract. "

That day, she had to change her story well past midnight, and her reviewers (me included) had to wait up while she found and wrote another news story.  

Yes. True. 

Remember that report we put night out for? Not only were the data sets different, their definitions of the same term were different too! 

In fact checking, assume NOTHING. 

- Know the difference between MoU and Letter of Intent; Signing of Contract and Award of Contract, and other such devilish details.  

5. Oh, the Beauty of Social News and Crowd Sourcing  

One of the wisest people I have worked with taught an important lesson - the IQ of a mob is the IQ of the stupidest person in the mob divided by the number of people in the mob. 

Crowdsourcing is great for innovative ideas. For fundraising. It is NOT great for facts and news. Crowds don't have facts. Or News. 

Please, do not go to Social Media, Wikipedia, or Whatsapp for your news. Do not trust the stings that are sent to you from these sources. 

Some days, we get the right information ONLY from these unofficial media - but such days are few and far between (In fact, only once in 3.5 years). 

Also, you have to have the wisdom to sift all this content and stick to that which is important and real. Remember, half truth is half lies. Some articles present only facts, and give solid analysis, but they present the facts that are convenient for *their* case. Most of us do not have the sleuthing skills to ask - What were the facts that you left out? 

If someone is sharing news on a social platform, their intention is not to share unbiased view. Usually, their intention is to win the support of their friends and family to *their* point of view. 

Special Note on Wikipedia: 

Wikipedia can be edited by ANYONE. My son's school prohibits the use of Wikipedia. 

So, of all the crimes we commit against ourselves, going to Wikipedia as a source of information is right among the top 5. Because in this case, we also live with the delusion that we are well informed. 

But this sounds like a PAIN! 

Oh, it IS! 

Fact checking is very, very painful - literally! Neck pain (Not pain in the neck, though that too, but like, literally, neck pain), shoulder pain, and eye dryness. No sugar coating the idea that if you are going to write your research reports, the researching will take 1 hour and the fact checking will take 3 to 5 hours. 

In Conclusion... 

BUT, over a period of time, we have become far more adept at recognising propaganda when we see it. The editorial team has become a super competent and aware set of professionals, and our children have benefited from this, because these fact check conversations become part of our every day talk: 

"Mom, why have you not covered this important development?"

"My dear, there was no development. He just made a random Tweet." 

"How do you know? " 

"We checked. :) "