How to Spot Fake News: Fact-Checking Methods Experts Recommend

Online misinformation remains a persistent concern for news consumers worldwide. According to the 2025 Digital News Report from the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism, based on nearly 100,000 interviews across 48 markets, 58% of respondents say they remain concerned about their ability to tell what is true from what is false when it comes to news online — a proportion the report describes as similar to the previous year's survey.

Why this is a recurring concern

The Reuters Institute report found concern about misinformation is highest in Africa and the United States, where 73% of respondents said they struggle to distinguish true from false news, compared with 46% in Western Europe. Respondents named two groups as the biggest perceived sources of misinformation, each cited by 47% of people: online influencers and personalities, and national politicians. News media and journalists were named by 32%.

Overall trust in news has held at 40% globally for three straight years, the report found. Trust was highest in Nigeria (68%), followed by Finland (67%), while Hungary and Greece were at the low end, both at 22%.

A separate factor that makes misinformation hard to contain is how quickly it travels. A 2018 study in the journal Science by MIT researchers Soroush Vosoughi, Deb Roy and Sinan Aral examined about 126,000 story cascades shared more than 4.5 million times on Twitter by roughly 3 million people between 2006 and 2017. The study found false stories were 70% more likely to be retweeted than true ones and reached 1,500 people roughly six times faster. The researchers reported this pattern held mainly because humans, not automated bot accounts, were doing most of the sharing, and suggested novelty — false stories tended to be more surprising — helped drive the spread.

Where people turn to check facts

The same Reuters Institute survey asked people what they do when they want to check whether something is true. The most common responses were consulting a trusted news outlet (38%), checking an official government source (35%), using a search engine (33%) and consulting a dedicated fact-checking organization (25%). The report noted that in politically polarized countries such as the United States, people often turn to outlets aligned with their own political leanings, while audiences in the UK and Germany more often cited public broadcasters such as the BBC and ARD.

Methods fact-checkers actually use

Media-literacy organizations describe several concrete techniques people can use to check viral claims, photos and videos, rather than relying on a single trick.

The News Literacy Project, a U.S. nonprofit focused on media literacy education, teaches four digital-verification skills for checking viral photos, videos and claims: critical observation of content details, reverse image search to trace where a picture originally appeared, geolocation to confirm where footage was actually filmed, and lateral reading to cross-reference a claim across multiple sources.

What fact-checking organizations commit to

The International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN), a unit of the Poynter Institute that accredits fact-checking organizations worldwide, operates a Code of Principles that signatories must follow. The code describes nonpartisan and transparent fact-checking as a potentially powerful tool for accountable journalism, while cautioning that fact-checking done without proper sourcing or with bias can deepen public distrust in the media and in experts. Signatories commit to publishing nonpartisan assessments of the accuracy of statements and being transparent about their sourcing and methods. The IFCN also runs training courses, including "Fact-Checking Fundamentals with IFCN" and "Fact-Checking for Everyone," aimed at both journalists and the general public.

The human factor

The MIT researchers who studied Twitter cascades found that false political news spread faster and more broadly than false stories in categories such as terrorism, natural disasters, science or urban legends. They also reported that false stories tended to provoke surprise and disgust among people who encountered them, while true stories were more associated with sadness, anticipation and trust — a pattern the authors linked to novelty being more shareable than familiar, accurate information.