A dramatic post can reach you before reliable reporting does. The first useful move is to identify exactly what it claims. Separate an assertion about an event from an opinion about its meaning. Write the assertion in a short sentence: what supposedly happened, where, and when? A claim that cannot be stated clearly is difficult to check and especially easy to exaggerate when sharing.
UNESCO describes media and information literacy as skills for engaging critically with information and navigating the online environment. Apply that idea by following the claim back to its earliest accessible source. A screenshot of a headline is one step removed from the article. A post quoting another post is another step removed. Open the original page and read beyond its headline before repeating the account.
Check dates at both ends of that trail. When was the event reported, and when was the material posted or updated? An authentic photograph from an earlier disaster can circulate during a new one. It remains an authentic photograph, but the new caption may be wrong. Search distinctive words from the claim, and use a reverse-image search when available to look for earlier appearances of a picture.
Then ask what evidence the source actually provides. Does it link to a document, identify a witness, publish a direct statement, or merely say that people online are discussing something? Read a cited document in context. If a government agency or institution is said to have announced a decision, look for that announcement through its own known website rather than trusting a lookalike account or an unfamiliar link.
Compare independent accounts. Three websites repeating the same wire report do not supply three separate confirmations. Look for reporting that identifies its own evidence and explains what remains uncertain. Agreement between independent sources can strengthen confidence, but a lack of immediate confirmation is also a reason to wait. Early reports may change as journalists obtain better information or correct initial mistakes.
Treat images and video as evidence requiring context. A clip can be genuine and still omit what happened immediately before it. Check the original upload, location clues, and surrounding sequence where possible. Visual oddities alone do not establish that an image was generated by AI; compression and editing can also create artefacts. If you cannot establish its origin, describe that uncertainty instead of claiming a definitive verdict.
Finally, make your sharing decision match what you know. Link to the original reporting, preserve important qualifications, and distinguish confirmed facts from allegations or estimates. You can also choose to share nothing yet. If you have already passed along an inaccurate claim, correct it clearly and include the better evidence. The useful habit is a traceable chain from the claim to its source, with room to change your mind.
Go to the sources
Our editorial standards explain how sources and automated briefings are handled.