0:00:23.088,0:00:25.818
We all have to become digital detectives

0:00:28.720,0:00:29.900
The first is:

0:00:30.055,0:00:32.435
Where is this information coming from?

0:00:33.099,0:00:34.709
A lot of fake news sites,

0:00:34.815,0:00:37.431
try to create a URL which is similar to

0:00:37.533,0:00:41.491
a URL of a publication that you might know

0:00:41.543,0:00:43.333
or you might be familiar with.

0:00:44.113,0:00:47.003
Ultimately, the best way to understand

0:00:47.060,0:00:49.080
wheter or not a site is trustworthy

0:00:49.139,0:00:51.947
is to actually read the content on the site

0:00:51.947,0:00:53.717
not just one article on it

0:00:53.749,0:00:55.629
but other articles and see:

0:00:55.629,0:00:57.025
do they meet the standards

0:00:57.025,0:00:58.433
of quality journalism?

0:01:11.125,0:01:12.905
If it makes you really angry,

0:01:13.004,0:01:14.184
or really sad,

0:01:14.234,0:01:16.107
or it makes you burst out laughing,

0:01:16.157,0:01:17.974
that's actually a red flag to you,

0:01:18.040,0:01:19.756
because is kinda short circuiting

0:01:19.829,0:01:22.604
your logic center or your ability to think.

0:01:26.282,0:01:28.362
I can look up the author of that article,

0:01:28.399,0:01:31.286
I can see the other things they've written.

0:01:31.504,0:01:33.452
Is there an author of the article?

0:01:33.476,0:01:35.309
Because, that's an importante tip

0:01:35.368,0:01:36.998
in helping us figure out

0:01:37.042,0:01:38.941
wheter or not this piece of information

0:01:38.961,0:01:41.634
is actually real and trustworthy.

0:01:45.988,0:01:47.868
If i read something that says:

0:01:48.142,0:01:49.642
"Scientists say that

0:01:49.758,0:01:51.788
chocolate cake makes you smarter".

0:01:51.982,0:01:53.869
Well, what scientists?

0:01:54.120,0:01:56.136
and, what exactly did they say?

0:01:56.200,0:01:57.270
One of the ways

0:01:57.289,0:01:58.789
in which rumors spread is

0:01:58.838,0:02:00.178
that a lot of people

0:02:00.216,0:02:01.936
keep repeating the same information,

0:02:01.958,0:02:03.840
but nobody has verified it.

0:02:03.904,0:02:05.694
So, journalists depend on

0:02:05.710,0:02:07.228
high quality sources.

0:02:07.282,0:02:08.322
So, experts

0:02:08.373,0:02:10.233
how did you come across this information?

0:02:10.304,0:02:11.198
How do you know

0:02:11.207,0:02:12.767
that this information is true?

0:02:16.439,0:02:18.009
Someone takes that photo

0:02:18.048,0:02:19.548
that's maybe 3 years ago and say,

0:02:19.568,0:02:21.102
"This is happening right now".

0:02:21.112,0:02:22.269
We saw a lot of that

0:02:22.269,0:02:23.589
during recent hurricanes

0:02:30.212,0:02:32.102
Using a reverse image search

0:02:32.110,0:02:33.270
on Google

0:02:33.281,0:02:35.211
can tell you where that image

0:02:35.245,0:02:36.685
has appeared before and

0:02:36.709,0:02:37.789
who has shared it.

0:02:38.906,0:02:41.038
That can give you important tips

0:02:41.041,0:02:43.051
as to whether or not

0:02:43.068,0:02:44.416
the image is original,

0:02:44.448,0:02:45.740
whether or not the image is

0:02:45.760,0:02:46.986
in its original context.

0:02:50.017,0:02:51.277
This is what we have to do

0:02:51.350,0:02:53.700
we try to drill down a little bit deeper

0:02:53.700,0:02:54.942
than that first tweet

0:02:54.942,0:02:56.280
that tells you that chocolate cake

0:02:56.280,0:02:57.392
makes you smarter.