The Facts about Fact Checking: Crash Course Navigating Digital Information #2


Hi I’m John Green, welcome to Crash Course
Navigating Digital Information. So, the internet is a place where you can
meet friends for life from halfway around the world, you can keep in touch with your
loved ones, you can learn new languages and pick up new skills. It’s also a place where your mother can
tag you in an extremely detailed Facebook post about the night of your birth that all
your friends can see. And it’s a place where you can accidentally
like your ex’s new boyfriend’s Instagram selfie from three years ago. God it would be hard to be a young person
on the Internet right now. I really admire your fortitude and resilience. These days, a lot of us are asking whether
the Internet is a net positive or a net negative in our lives. But I tend to think that question might be
what the Buddhist Zen masters called, A question wrongly put. Instead, the better question might be, “How
can I make the Internet a more positive force in my life, and the lives of others?” And part of the answer, I think, is that better
information leads to better decision making, which leads to a better world. So for the sake of our collective souls, let’s
improve our information sorting. INTRO
As you may remember from our first episode, we’ve teamed up with MediaWise, with support
from Google to bring you this series. Our friends at the Stanford History Education
Group — or SHEG — have done a lot of research on how internet users evaluate the information
they find. They’ve tested middle school, high school,
and college students, history professors, and fact checkers, who were by far the best
at judging the reliability of information. Professional fact checkers work with news
organizations to verify facts. Sometimes that means they look over articles
before they’re published to ensure their content is accurate and up to date. They might call up a source, for example,
to double check the spelling of their name. Once, there was a profile of me in the New
Yorker, and the fact-checker asked me questions for OVER AN HOUR. And in the end, the piece contained no errors. Although, it did an illustration I found a
tad unflattering. To be fair, the illustration also contained
no errors. I just don’t think I like my face. Anyway, fact checkers also work for publications
whose sole purpose is to verify claims made by public figures or on the internet, and
explain why they are or are not true. Snopes and Politifact are some of the more
well-known fact-checking sites. So, in the Stanford study, college students,
history professors, and fact-checkers were all asked to look at two websites. One website belonged to the American Academy
of Pediatrics[1], or the AAP, the main professional organization of pediatricians. The other site belonged to the American /College/
of Pediatricians, or the ACP. Now of course, they sound very similar, but
the ACP is actually an organization that broke away from the AAP because the AAP supports
adoption by LGBTQ couples. The AAP is a large, well-respected professional
organization. My kids’ pediatrician is a member. The ACP, on the other hand, is a much smaller,
more ideologically-motivated interest group. But looking at the two sites, many of the
professors and students thought ACP’s site was more credible. Why? Because they focused on the site itself. They spent time examining and reading the
website, noticing that there were footnotes, and checking out its design elements. One student said of ACP’s website, “I
can automatically see this source and trust it just because of how official it looks…even
the font and the way the logo looks makes me think this is a mind hive that compiled
this.”[2] The ACP’s website may have looked official,
but when compared the the AAP’s website, its information was less reliable. AAP is the trustworthy group. So, the professors and students focused on
the websites themselves and how they /presented/ information to decide which was more credible. That meant they didn’t do a great job evaluating
the source itself. The fact-checkers on the other hand, did much
better. That’s because they consistently asked themselves
three questions while evaluating the sites: 1. Who is behind this information? 2. What is the evidence for their claims? And 3. What do other sources say about the organization
and its claims? These questions are a really useful framework
when you want to interpret the accuracy of information you’ve encountered. Let’s begin with who’s behind the information: First, we want to know who exactly is sharing
it with you. A friend on facebook? A stranger? A news organization? Is it promoted post that a company paid to
insert into your feed? An anonymous social media account? And then we should ask ourselves WHY they
are sharing it. Each of those sharers mentioned could have
very different reasons for presenting information in a particular way. I am, for instance, incentivized by my career
to say that I think teenagers should read contemporary fiction, specifically contemporary
fiction written by me, and I am more likely to share stories of people who benefited from
reading contemporary fiction. And even your personal friends have motivations
for sharing what they do online–they may want to signal what kind of person they are
(or wish to be seen as), or they may want to win over others to their worldview, or
they may be trying to get someone’s attention with a subtweet. A journalist might be sharing information
because they think it’s important for their readers to know, but, of course, that decision
is based on their own personal experiences. An advocate for a particular cause might be
sharing information to persuade others to join that cause. Once you’ve established who is sharing information
with you and thought about why they might be doing so, you get to the heart of the matter. The claim itself. Take a moment to identify what, if any, claims
are actually being made. It could be a factual claim or an opinion
statement. Reading is a useful skill is a factual claim. Reading The Fault in Our Stars will make your
life better, clear your skin, and improve your wardrobe is an opinion statement. And a true one. Next you’ll search for two things: whether
they’ve backed up that claim with evidence and whether that evidence is from a reliable
source. Evidence could come in the form of a link
to the article or study they’re referencing. It could be a video or photo illustrating
what they’ve described. It could even be the name of someone who made
the claim in the first place. The next step is to look at the source of
this evidence. Is it a reputable source, like a trusted news
organization or an expert in the field? Or is it from some random blog you’ve never
heard of? Does it back up its claims with other sources
or explain how its information was gathered? If you’ve never heard of the source of this
information, you can use a search engine to discover what others say about it. The sheer /existence/ of evidence is not enough
to verify a claim. The /absence/ of evidence, on the other hand,
is reason to be skeptical of its veracity until you can verify it. And that brings us to the final and really
vital step: what do others say about this claim? Whenever you’re checking on the truth, you
can and should check multiple sources to see what other information is out there. Check a search engine or a website known to
be an authority on the topic to see what others have published about it. If a trustworthy source backs it up, great. If you can’t find evidence for that claim
or you find evidence to the contrary, then you can be fairly certain it’s not true. So these three questions — who’s behind
it, what’s the evidence, and what do others say — really kind of put information through
the ringer. Let’s try it out in the Thought Bubble. Here’s a tweet from Steve S. @steelseller002:
Each American uses 25 plastic straws daily. We should use metal ones!!! All right. Let’s begin by asking who’s behind this
information and what motivated them to post it. His profile says his name is Steve S. His
handle is @steelseller002. So you search “Steve S., steel seller.” It turns out, @steelseller002 /sells steel/. Perhaps he loves the environment and wants
to help reduce waste. He also might just want to sell more steel. So now, you look at the evidence of this information. He didn’t give us any. Even if he had provided a source, that wouldn’t
guarantee this is trustworthy — claims should be backed up by evidence, and not all evidence
is created equal. But the absence of it is suspicious. Finally, you want to look into what /other/
sources have to say about this claim. As we’ve established, some are more credible
than others, but all sources have their limits. So it’s important to seek multiple trustworthy
sources when fact-checking. You do a simple internet search: “Number
of straws used by Americans per day.” The New York Times cites two research firms
that say America as a whole uses between 170 and 390 million straws per day.[3] That’s
a little over one per person per day at most. But search results from Time Magazine,
the Washington Post, and The Seattle Times cite another statistic:
500 million per day. Some publications, though, say that statistic
was compiled by a 9-year-old who polled straw manufacturers. Regardless, that estimate is still fewer than
two straws per American per day. So we have no consensus. But from our research it seems somewhere between
170 and 500 million straws per day is more accurate. Far fewer than Steve’s claim. Steve. Thank you, Thought Bubble. I just…we were just talking about the name
Steve, and whether anybody is named Steve, and I asked Zulaiha if she knew anybody named
Steve, and she said, “I don’t anyone young named Steve. Just one guy in his late 20s.” Oh God. Oh God, Father Time is coming for me. What were we talking about, Stan? Right, checking with multiple sources made
us pretty skeptical of Steve’s claim. Typical for an old guy in his late 20s. Now, that doesn’t mean plastic straws should
be widely distributed, or that they don’t have negative impacts,or that you can trust
@plasticseller002 on Twitter–but regardless of how you feel about straws, we need to have
these discussions with real data and real cost-benefit analyses. Better information makes for better decisions. You’re going to hear me say that a few times. Now I know that this seems like an absurd
amount of work to check the veracity of one tweet out GAJILLIONZ of tweets. But there is no simple, magical way to have
an information feed that is always reliable. And so when you encounter information that
comes from sources you don’t already trust, you have to be suspicious of it. And even when it comes from sources you do
already trust, you have to be a little suspicious of it. Interrogating the information we come across
online is just so important. You cannot believe everything you read — but
that doesn’t mean you should distrust everything you read, either. This is actually its own problem. We’ve become so skeptical of widely believed
information, that we’ll believe any evidence that counters that information, regardless
of whether it is accurate. There’s a very fine line between being skeptical
— or, not easily convinced — and being cynical, or generally distrustful of everyone else’s
motives. A healthy dose of skepticism improves our
critical thinking and judgement. But cynicism clouds our judgement with negativity
and suspicion. It’s really difficult for any of us, on
a minute-by-minute basis, to carefully vet the contents of every tweet or reddit post
we see while scrolling and swiping. But if we can carefully interrogate some sources,
we can find some that we regularly trust, which makes it easier to navigate the Internet
over time. Whenever your inner skeptic speaks up, your
fact-checking can begin by checking in with your trusted sources. But of course, the problem with this is that
your inner skeptic may speak up mostly when you see information that seems like it must
be wrong to you because it does not align with your pre-existing worldview. Here’s an example from my own life: I don’t
want to alienate anyone here, so I’ll use like, hypothetical examples. Let’s say there’s some horrible football
club named United Manchester FC. Watching one of their games recently, I shared
a tweet about how United Manchester FC are awarded more penalty kicks than any other
team, and how it is blatantly unfair. And everyone agreed with me, because almost
everyone in my feed also reviles United Manchester FC. It was only much later that I learned that
the football team I support has actually been awarded more penalties over the past 25 years
than United Manchester. The disinformation did not trip up my inner
skeptic, because it seemed like the kind of thing that would be true. So we shouldn’t /just/ wait for our inner
skeptic to tap us on the shoulder about information we disagree with. We need to make a habit of quickly checking
out whatever we find interesting or shareable or that makes us emotional. Because that is the kind of stuff that changes
our decisions, and also changes us. And so we have to train those internal falsehood
alarms to respond not just to potential misinformation we disagree with. That’s why fact-checkers are so good at
this — they have to check everything. But this work is like any other kind of training:
the more you utilize your information analyzing muscles, the stronger they’ll get. So, we’ll continue to work out next time,
but, you know, not, like, with movement. Just…up here. I’ll see you then. For this series, Crash Course has teamed up
with MediaWise, a project out of the Poynter Institute that was created with support from
Google. The Poynter Institute is a non-profit journalism
school. The goal of MediaWise is to teach students
how to assess the accuracy of information they encounter online. The MediaWise curriculum was developed by
the Stanford History Education Group based on civic online reasoning research that they
began in 2015. If you’re interested in learning more about
MediaWise and fact-checking, you can visit @mediawisetips on Instagram. ________________
[1] https://sheg.stanford.edu/civic-online-reasoning/website-reliability [2] https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3048994
[3]https://medium.com/@MediaWiseTips/do-americans-really-use-500-million-straws-a-day-%E3%83%84-7e711416b10c

You may also like...

100 Responses

  1. Lit Crit says:

    Actually, “Read FAULT will clear up your skin” is a FACTUAL claim — a statement of fact. It may be false, but it is still presented as a statement that could be evaluated by comparing it to things in the world, potentially by multiple observers.

    “Reading FAULT was a joyous experience,” however, is a statement of opinion. It cannot be fact-checked, cannot be compared to things in the world, is not open to confirmation by multiple observers.

    STATEMENTS OF FACT can be FALSE. And false statements are not necessarily just statements of opinion. The accuracy of the statements is irrelevant.

    Check out the Pew research on fact and opinion for more on this.

  2. Lit Crit says:

    “If you find evidence to the contrary, you can be fairly certain it’s not true.”
    This seems like a very poor guide for thinking.

  3. Rafael Toro VIP says:

    Awesome video 👍👍👍 thanks.

  4. Murph Does Gamer says:

    Hello john mate, I would very much enjoy seeing a crash course literature episode on "The Tempest" in the future. See to it please. Also you're really cute teehee 😉

  5. metal wellington says:

    I can't believe that you actually have to explain this to people.

  6. Savage Activity says:

    Make video on fake news

  7. James Runyon says:

    Hey man. You've been looking at your face for your while life. There's no fault in getting a little tired of it after a while. That's just human.

  8. Livertia Haywood says:

    This old lady in her 30's love your videos. Thanks. Enjoy your day.

  9. Jefferson Lam says:

    Before: “don’t believe everything you see on TV. Also, I read this thing online so it must be true!”
    Now: “ok, maybe don’t believe everything you see online either…”

  10. Andreia Freixo says:

    but…why…historians?

  11. N says:

    again, i love this series, but at the end of the video the music should be lower (at 13:03)

  12. Bom Mcjigger says:

    Hank Green Philosophy of Understanding :O

  13. Bom Mcjigger says:

    What about books for science?

  14. Trolltician says:

    Goes to show how idiotic the methodology is… I literally laughed when he said ACP is the more ideologically motivated organization… The irony… abounds…

  15. cosmoruski says:

    hidden ad for google

  16. Jonathan Gepertson Olis says:

    In a scale of 1 to 10, how much should I trust Wikipedia?

  17. FreeGoro says:

    This process is very vulnerable to large interest capture and majority dominance. For instance, let's suppose that research indicates that smoking is bad but you live in a society where everyone and their aunt smokes. The major journals and their peer reviewers dismiss you (emotional bias) and you find yourself publishing in a smaller, less well known journal. Now when you make the claim, all the newspapers (who are written by smoking journalists) are going to highlight that you published in a less well known journal and an in fact have been rejected by the "established journals". The biased headlines are then retweeted. it's also noted that you are a non smoker and have been known to vocalize your dislike of it so you clearly have an interest in the matter.
    This effect of having all of society against you and yet wrong and yet appearing to be more credible through self reinforcement is why so many people decry "the mainstream" media and "the establishment" and the deep state. If you're correct but in an intellectual minority , the world is not on your side usually.

  18. Grizlerber says:

    does anyone else find it funny that we're learning about navigating digital information from a guy who's vowed for a year to stay off the internet

  19. Claire Vannette says:

    I'm disappointed that John gave an incorrect example to illustrate the difference between facts and opinions. "Reading The Fault in Our Stars will give you clear skin" is a factual claim. It makes an assertion about objective reality. Either the book affects your blemishes, or it doesn't. Incorrect factual claims are not opinions. And you cannot understand fact-checking if you don't understand what facts *are*.

  20. Phil Robichaud says:

    The thing with fact-checking is that you also have to be aware of your own confirmation biases while you're doing it

  21. Alexander Sandalis says:

    SUMMARY OF KEY POINTS:
    These are very useful questions to ask when attempting to decipher the accuracy (validly) and reliability of information.

    Face checkers are known as the best at discerning truth and authenticity behind information media. They usually ask 3 questions while evaluating information:

    1.
    Who is behind this information?
    Friend? Stranger? Media outlet? Advertisement?

    Further ask: Why are they sharing this information, what is their possible agenda and/or bias?

    2.
    What is the evidence for their claims?
    Are they making a factual claim? Stating something that is known to be true – e.g. reading is a useful skill.

    Are they making an opinion statement? e.g. reading x book will change your life and will triple your income in 90 days.

    Further Ask:

    1. Whether they've baked up that claim with evidence? e.g. a study, educational video, photo

    2. Whether that evidence is from a reliable source? – asking: is this a reputable source? (an expert in the field, trusted reliable media outlet? Or from some random blog?

    The sheer existence of evidence is not enough to verify a claim. However the absence of evidence is reason to be skeptical of it's veracity until you can verify it.

    AKA Claims should be baked up by evidence but not all evidence is created equal. But the absence of it is suspicious.

    3. What do other sources say about the organisation and it's claims?

    Check multiple sources to see what other information is out there, some are more credible than others, but all sources have their limits. Do any trustworthy sources corroborate said claims, refute it or make no mention of it all?

    Better information makes me better decisions.

    This might seem like an absurd amount of work to check the accuracy of one statement out of the plethora of information out there. But there is no simple magical way to have an information feed that is always reliable. So when you encounter information that comes from sources you don't already trust, you should employ a healthy amount of suspicion and skepticism about it. Even if it comes from sources you already trust (maybe me) you still should be a little suspicious and curious to understand where it came from, my bias and what others are saying about it.

    In the best case scenario, life is based on daily decisions on a foundation of the information we believe to be the most true. Whether your a journalist or a strength coach – any profession that relies on the transmission of factual information should be asking these questions IF holding yourself to a high standard of service is important. We can't believe everything we read or hear – but that doesn't mean we should distrust everything either. It's especially become a problem (especially in the fitness/health industry) where we've become so skeptical of widely believed common sense information that we'll believe any evidence that counters that information, regardless of whether it is accurate. Yes, it's important to challenge the status quo and commonly head beleives to test their weight, but there's a fine line between being skeptical (not easily convinced) and being cynical (generally distrustful of everyone's motives). Healthy skepticism improves our critical thinking and judgement but cynicism distorts our judgement with negativity and suspicion.

    What's the practicality of this? It's less about dissecting and vetting every piece of information we encounter because that would be exhausting and impractical. But for information we will decide to become the 'big rocks' foundation of our knowledge, it seem's critical to ask these questions and interrogate some sources.

    The Problem with Personal Bias: Whenever your inner skeptic speaks up, your questions and fact checking can begin. But the problem with this is that your inner skeptic usually only speaks up when you see information that seem's like it must be wrong to you because it doesn't support your preconceived notions/believes. E.G. I might see a see an article headline that discusses why warm ups pre-weight training are useless – my internal bias towards advocating warm ups might wan't do immediately dismiss this as my inner skeptic turns on in full force. But we shouldn't wait for our inner skeptic to turn on for information we disagree with. We need to make a habit of fact checking information with agree with as well. This could be simply put as being open to question information we find interesting, shareable or makes us emotional. That is the kind of information that changes our decisions and also us as people. So we have to train those internal falsehood alarms to respond not only to potential misinformation we disagree with but information we already believe and agree with.

    This is like any skill though, the more you utilize your information analyzing muscles the stronger you get.

  22. Bennie Saying Things says:

    I KNEW this video was simply a vehicle to pedal reductive anti-cynicism propaganda! I’ve caught you out, John (if that IS your real name)! I’ve examined the evidence and it leads HERE! I’ve read past your “intent” and “documented history of being both well intentioned and well informed”! I have taken a single statement out of context and twisted it so I’m right and the world is crazy! Let’s see you fact your way out of THIS non-fight! Debate me!

    🤣

  23. Arturo Stojanoff says:

    How do you decide what sources are reputable and trustworthy?

  24. Satyarth Shankar says:

    12:06 That's not actually a penalty kick 🙂

  25. ncooty says:

    @9:48 Yes; it's much more work than most people will undertake, which is why it's so unfortunate that you haven't begun this process by discussing the importance of establishing relevant criteria. Who cares about the veracity of irrelevant claims?

    In other words, in most practical circumstances (those associated with the "better decisions" you're aiming to achieve):

    "Does it matter?" is more important than "Is it true?".

  26. Betawarier the meme lord says:

    I'm listening to this only to hear John Green taking

  27. Trusted King says:

    Hmmm ok. So the ACP lacks the well-respect that the AAP has because of an ideological rift, despite the ACP members once being part of the AAP. So as soon as a former pediatrician part of the AAP removes his AAP label and starts wearing an ACP, they are magically less credible. I think that is biased. Because we have people who qualified in their field, whom the AAP has determined with scrutiny when they hired those people, start to have opinions contrary to what both the producers and Crash Course producers have in alignment (that LGBT should be able to adopt), then the burden of proof is forced down upon to why they ARE credible. If the students were supposed to fact check those two websites, then isn't it false to fact check websites that only differ by opinion statements? In American court, the defendant is innocent until proven guilty. But the ACP are automatically now not credible for some reason because their ideology is different, despite those pediatricians once working for the AAP.

  28. Rachel Reiss says:

    Or another way to put it: "It's 'sez who' all the way down"!

  29. Luka Cvitkovic says:

    To quote EuroTrip: "IF YOUR NOT A MANC YOUR A WANK" 😀
    Yes it says your in the movie, go fact check if you dont believe me 😀

  30. Meehleib Family says:

    You may not like your face … but your voice, your humor, what you say and how you say it … Top Notch!
    John, please do more crash course and anthropecene review podcast. Please please please???

  31. Saka Mulia says:

    Is Steve Steel a straw man? Badum tisshhhhhh!

  32. homericbasketlicker says:

    This is a great video in a massively useful series from an organisation I have enormous respect for. Well done for that.

    Can't help but wonder about two things though.

    John mentions in the video that proper fact checking is an enormous amount of work, even for something as simple as a tweet. No one could possibly function if they thoroughly fact-checked every piece of information they came across, they'd just never get anything done. At some point, you have to delegate trust to someone. In the old media system this responsibility largely fell to editors and publishers, some of whom very much abused their role, but by and large they managed to keep the lid on most of the crazy. In the current environment I fear that the best most of us can do is rely on broad rules of thumb.

    The second point is a little more worrying. The organisations (mostly profit driven) that currently deliver information to us don't seem to be taking any responsibility for the content they are making available. Barring some take downs of obviously irresponsible posts, you're pretty much free to be as racist or anti-vax as you like online. So after saturating the public sphere with (often lousy) information, these same companies are now advocating that we all need greater media literacy. I'm not saying that greater media literacy is a bad thing, just its a bit rich that companies like Google (who paid for this video) are now suggesting the problem is with the consumers, not the content they're serving up. They broke it and now they're telling us the onus is on us (including your racist technophobic gran) to fix it.

  33. kor0crazyNZchick says:

    john , you are talking very slow, 🙁

  34. Marco Aurélio Lima do Nascimento Junior says:

    An awesome start for the series!!

  35. GermanConquistador08 says:

    "My kids doctor is a member" – That's a rather important interest you have in defending the group then Mr. Green. Whether it affects the reliability of your video, might require some more research 🙂
    Joking aside, I hope you do a video in this series about Corporate media. You showed news publications like the Washington Post and others, but those Corporations and the Journalists they employ have interests which need to be examined just as thoroughly as we examine individuals.
    Really been enjoying this series so far 🙂

  36. Peaceluvr18 says:

    I wish you had done a more detailed example with the ACP and AAP — e.g. looked at where the information was coming from and shown that the ACP was not as reputable

  37. RiseAgainstDisciple says:

    Wonder if any Leftist snowflakes will learn anything from this…. probably not since they already took offense to it.

  38. Dimitar Dachev says:

    I did put my glasses but the video was still out of focus.

  39. Beokabatukaba says:

    I don't agree with your example of a factual claim vs an opinion claim. While the claim that reading is a useful skill is certainly more easily verifiable (mostly because of how uncontroversial it is and how likely most people are to agree on what constitutes "usefulness"), it's still subject to some (minor) interpretive leeway. But really, I take more issue with the opinion example. The claim that reading The Fault in Our Stars will make your life better, clear your skin, and improve your wardrobe is subject to a significantly more varying field of interpretations, but it's not different in kind from the previous example, only in degree. If we provide some criteria (even if only for the sake of argument) about what constitutes a "better" life/wardrobe/skin just as we might provide criteria for what makes something useful, then that second claim is just as much a factual claim that can be tested empirically as the first.

  40. Lugas says:

    been a long time not watching crash course, and you look old John, or tired(?)

  41. Wesley Kriz says:

    The whole claim-evidence framework is so important to master

  42. 4jonah says:

    More important: don't believe everything you think. Most people lack that

  43. Bruce Baker says:

    On my mom's side if had four uncle Steves. I don't have any sources, just a picture of them together. Ya, i'm not going to post that on a youtube comment.

  44. Kris says:

    This is an excellent course. It gives me, an internet 3rd grader, insight and encouragement to travel safely on a highway that can be very dangerous. Thank you.

  45. T HESP says:

    5:48 I have to disagree.
    "Reading will make your life better" is an opinion statement; although widely agreed with, unless you define what better means, you're offering opinion.
    The other statement is a factual statement, if offers X will happen if you do Y. It just happens to also be untrue.

  46. Normies Unite says:

    I dont trust fact checkers, or news outlets, or politicians. I can verify my own information. I dont rely on others to think for me.

  47. sterhax says:

    Hold on, why is “Reading will improve your skin” an opinion? That is just a dubious fact. Somebody is asserting to you that there is a reading skincare connection. They are saying demonstrable lies.

    “Reading produces better citizens.” That’s an opinion. The betterness of citizenry depends on subjective qualities that change by observer.

  48. warmowed says:

    Fact Checkers: Looks for the author, checks for conflicts of interest, actually reads the information and determines if it makes sense
    99% of People: Colors and shapes!
    Yeah……

  49. Scott Korin says:

    Spoiler alert: Steve's avatar is actually first season X-Files David Duchovny

  50. ben hengst says:

    was this shot with a catdiotropic lense? so many donuts

  51. Jorge Marcos says:

    I don't know if a video on cognitive biases is coming, but I think it would be a wonderful addition to this series. It is very much in line with the concept of fact-checking claims you agree with just as much as those you disagree with.

  52. J.S. Tama says:

    The most frustrating part is proving someone wrong and have they dismiss the information to continue making their claim.
    The nerve on those people

  53. petr shv says:

    your eyes were out of focus for the whole video

  54. SideNote says:

    Thank you so much for this. I think every creator (especially educational ones) on this platform should watch this series of videos.

  55. X-01 Unknown says:

    I can’t believe anyone needs a tutorial for this. But I’m glad someone is trying to fix all the ignorance!

  56. Paul Beck says:

    I know I'm being pedantic. However, fact-check should be hyphenated, as it is a compound word 😀

  57. Christian Salge says:

    did steve tell you that perchance? steeeve.

  58. AspiringIce says:

    I’m JUST realizing you’re the same John Green that wrote The Fault In Our Stars and Paper Towns, two of my personal favorite pieces of contemporary fiction. I must’ve been living under a rock

  59. Mpumelelo Ndlovu says:

    Why are you a Liverpool FC Supporter?and if you are what motivated you too STILL support them?

  60. XxPlayMakerxX131 says:

    Amazing stuf

  61. Frumentius Kwee says:

    wow you're gettin chubby bro..

  62. Nate Smith says:

    Aw! John Greene, i like your face.

  63. Chaplain Tappman says:

    There are no "penalty kicks" in football. 🏈

  64. Daraul Harris says:

    You're a Liverpool man? I believe every word you have or will ever speak.

  65. Fellow Citizen says:

    Jonathan Haidt has some useful material about how intelligent people are better at understanding and describing things that they value, yet no better than unintelligent people at understanding and describing things which they disagree with.

  66. Nerdcoresteve1 says:

    My name is Steve and I'm 43. Is Steve an old person name now? Do I have the modern name equivalent to Ethel or Eustace?

  67. Matt Lyons says:

    Most fact checkers work for publications that exist to make a profit by catering to an audience that they know will follow a particular ideology. They gather all kinds of personal data about their customers so they know what to report and what to ignore so they can keep selling their product to that group. Prove me wrong.

  68. Matt Lyons says:

    Since journalists are in competition with any online personality with a Twitter account, they don't bother checking with the fact-checker in order to get their story out there first. I would be interested to see where journalists rank on the scale shown at the beginning of this video as to who accurately evaluates information. I don't say this to claim that journalists are evil, just that they are under deadlines and that can lead to lax standards of fact-checking. Unfortunately, you don't know if a source is sloppy, well-meaning, evil, or actually doing a good job.

  69. Matt Lyons says:

    Very good points about "what must be true because it seems to go along with what I already think" and "we can't check every single thing on our social media feed because we just don't have time."

  70. grovermatic says:

    I just want to find a daily news source that isn't trying to sway me. Reuters seems about the closest, but then their reporting is so devoid of sensationalism I find it dry and boring… so I go poison my mind with the handy-dandy echo chamber Google News' algorithms have carefully crafted for me. Yay Obama. Trump is evil. If you disagree with me you hate America. It's exhausting.

  71. The Gray says:

    Summary: Leftist hate sites good. The end.

  72. Justanotherconsumer says:

    Not sure that was the best example of fact/opinion.

    That reading is useful is an opinion statement – utility is a question of value and therefore opinion.

    That reading is required for many job opportunities in modern society is a fact – whether that’s useful or not is secondary, the statement is either right or wrong.

    That reading is used to eat apples is a statement of fact (one that is wrong, but it is still not an opinion).

  73. jarnMod says:

    I think we haven't quite come up with a good way to fact check yet. Method shown in this vdo may fall pray to circular reporting, or sponsored articles given they do it on most platforms. And don't forget how news sites butcher scientific news all the time. There is a recent case from the place I live in. The government claims their term sees national debt dropped. Fact check with national statistic will yield the same stats. However, many people forget that the government ordered the treasury to use a new accounting technique to reduce national debt in order to issue more loan last year. Therefore the latest stat has the lowest debt ratio.

    Don't forget that when Nazi took power, all reputable sources went rotten. Even now, you guys still don't understand how great Kim family is, nor do North Korean people – but on the opposite spectrum. Reputable source is an easy way, perhaps the optimal, but not the best way. Any tyrant worth their salt will take control of the reputable for their narration.

    I think another way is simply not to believe what you're told. Delay the decision to trust the info. Given enough time, the internet will provide you with a ton of counter evidences and you can start your decision from the drama that ensue. Actually, if anyone doing a PHD or a Master, this is the topic of the generation. Work on it. Make a better world.

  74. Antje Utgaard says:

    If in India people become so vigilant, BJP will be finished.

  75. JDAWG Gamer says:

    This guy just promoted himself for 14 minutes 😀

  76. CRAZY FUNNY says:

    Nice information…
    Friend's please support my channels

  77. Dule Stosic says:

    and what would be reason to trust you? who are professional fact checkers? why to trust them? for me it seems you are supporting censorship

  78. Aiko Atsume says:

    the game theorists are more accurate than like, dantdm

  79. Makjnx says:

    So it really boils down to: The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.

  80. yearswriter says:

    Is it ironic, that those videos just does not appear in my sub feed?

  81. SmarterEveryDay says:

    You have an excellent face John.

  82. MBE Se06 says:

    It's Manchester United, not United Manchester!

  83. Navesblue says:

    I haven't used a plastic straw in months! Screw them! They're only contributing to strangling our oceans and ecosystems! And this's both a fact and opinion based comment!

  84. Agnieszka Malicka says:

    Omg I'm sending this to all my friends at university who can't fact check and use all the wrong sources for our group projects. I'm sooo sick of fact checking them. It's not like I have access to something they don't. :p

  85. Scott Emmonss says:

    you know…snopes is just one of those massively left wing fact checking sites that called Ben Shapiro a White Supremacist despite..you know..being a jew and total target of the that group. Good call John. Next thing we got is Ilhan Omar on one of these channels….egregios

  86. Davis Reid Steffens says:

    Father-Time .. while being a… B#!!hole, your consistent use of fun ways to self deprecate makes my Father-Time less … timely. Thanks per usual.

    FYI: I did not fact check John's accuracy on his statements concerning Father-Time. Luckily, I'm lazy when it come to humor. So .. "Y'all" (the royal "Y'all") comment responsibly and when possible, with humor ya'HEar?….

    … Uhhh..

    What's missing here?

    (oh yeah)..

    .. Please..

    Thank you,
    D.S.

  87. Ray Crow says:

    How about using logic and logical fallacies rather than making stuff up about Alex Jones

  88. Occidentally says:

    Are fact checkers immune to their own ideological biases? Nothing in this episode about how to evaluate fact checkers themselves and the tricks they use to selectively pick facts and spin them.
    There is so much that can be done to frame and to omit information that goes beyond mere presentation of facts.

  89. Andres Pulido says:

    Manchester United!

  90. maryamevermore says:

    The basic premise that websites and various online purveyors of information won't outright LIE TO YOU, is categorically false. ALL websites these days are excruciatingly political with well demonstrated bias. There is no question Google and their ilk are the modern day Gestapo, fiercely policing anyone or anything that contradicts their world view.

  91. Andrew Giroux says:

    are there fact checker checkers?

  92. R King says:

    Good video.. a couple of extra criteria:

    Even reputable news organizations are subject to subjectivity. If you are truly interested in accurate news, there are a few things you can do.

    1) read multiple sources that have known different leanings and compare the FACTS in the stories vs. the conclusions. Too many stories present extra conclusions that may not be supported or are thinly supported by the facts. So the only way you can tell what is really going on is to look for multiple news stories and try to see all the facts rather than just those thought to be important by the specific journalist. I skim headlines for interest, and for something I'm interested in, I use google to look for stories from other news sources.

    2) understand political hot button issues will create a huge noise factor that you must fight through. I'm learned to be very suspect of any information found online about things like Climate Change, Trump, Obama, Vaxxing, Gluten, dietary supplements, etc., etc., etc. This doesn't mean the truth doesn't exist, but it does mean there are a lot of people that are very motivated to make their points absent real proof. So using google to figure out facts first can really help discriminate between those that are making good arguments, vs. conspiracy type sources that use theories only to support their arguments.

    3) understand your own assumptions and theories. If you are truly being fair, you have to understand what you don't know, what you don't understand, and where your thinking is based on theories rather than facts. Most of these theories probably came from something you read, but I've found some people make up their own theories that fit how they think. This will keep you from accepting sources that agree with you, but aren't supported by real facts. You've probably heard the term 'confirmation bias'… what I'm talking about is what leads to that. If you don't know what in your thinking is based on real facts vs. just theories, then you don't really know if your conclusions are accurate. We must all every day use these types of assumptions just to get through life.. but at the same time they are blind spots that can lead to further error. Whenever I'm reading any story where I'm unsure of the truth, I try to start with what I know to be facts, and then verify the stuff I might tend to agree with, but should be supported by real evidence.

  93. Dezhavu13 says:

    Overall, nicely done. However, fact checkers, especially those working for a mainstream media outlet, often show bias in their responses or they narrow the initial question that they are checking to fit the answer they want to give. So be careful with those.

    Also, keep at least spot checking those sources that you have come to trust. They can change over time. That change may be slow, and you may not realize that the information you are now getting isn't as factual as it used to be.

    Watch out for adjectives and adverbs. They will often give you a clue as to whether or not the information is slanted. A fact could be involved, but the adjective or adverb is trying to tell you how to think about that fact.

  94. Caleb Mitchell says:

    My little brother is named Steve

  95. LIFE OR DEATH LLC says:

    Who's fact checking the factchecker ???

  96. Dennis Tucker says:

    Very well done video. It is my hope that most people that deal with information(internet or not) would take this content to heart.

  97. Bettina Lykke says:

    If you don't read the newspaper, you're uninformed. If you read the newspaper, you're mis-informed

  98. PhysicsGuy1000 says:

    There should be more than 150,000 views for this.

  99. King Kura says:

    Fake fact checkers

  100. Kile B says:

    Wait did he just say that fact checkers work with the news That's oxymoronic that's like a jumbo shrimp a Homeland security

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *