Is there a standardised way to check fake news?Why won't Donald Trump do something about “fake news”?Has there been any attempt to prevent false information from spreading? (legal fact check)Numerical estimates of the effect of fake news on the outcome of elections?Is there some kind of conglomerate (“family”) which runs the majority of the US media sources?How is the audience for Fox News Town Halls chosen?

Infeasibility in mathematical optimization models

As a 16 year old, how can I keep my money safe from my mother?

AsyncDictionary - Can you break thread safety?

The cat ate your input again!

Is it legal for a company to enter an agreement not to hire employees from another company?

Should I ask for permission to write an expository post about someone's else research?

Does a code snippet compile? Or does it get compiled?

What does "sardine box" mean?

Can you castle with a "ghost" rook?

function evaluation - I don't get it

What game uses dice with sides powers of 2?

Why are Gatwick's runways too close together?

In SQL Server, why does backward scan of clustered index cannot use parallelism?

If "more guns less crime", how do gun advocates explain that the EU has less crime than the US?

What is my malfunctioning AI harvesting from humans?

I accidentally overwrote a Linux binary file

Visa National - No Exit Stamp From France on Return to the UK

What is the difference between 型 and 形?

Is TA-ing worth the opportunity cost?

Why did the RAAF procure the F/A-18 despite being purpose-built for carriers?

Continuous vertical line using booktabs in tabularx table?

Can a fight scene, component-wise, be too complex and complicated?

How to take the beginning and end parts of a list with simpler syntax?

Can the Action some concentration spells grant be used in Attacks of Opportunity with the War Caster feat?



Is there a standardised way to check fake news?


Why won't Donald Trump do something about “fake news”?Has there been any attempt to prevent false information from spreading? (legal fact check)Numerical estimates of the effect of fake news on the outcome of elections?Is there some kind of conglomerate (“family”) which runs the majority of the US media sources?How is the audience for Fox News Town Halls chosen?






.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0;








2















So many fact check reporters are out there. Most of them are biased. Worse, some themselves post fake news (Like Altnews.in; interestingly, they are IFCN qualified). Is there a standardized way to detect fake news?










share|improve this question





















  • 1





    Not really. There are a handful of things that I look for when I see something that is being widely shared, but no hard and fast rules. If there were hard and fast rules, the fake news outlets would use them to their advantage.

    – Joe C
    9 hours ago











  • Fake news watchdogs are like anti virus programs. Some of them are worse than what they are trying to prevent. Even the mainstream ones like Snopes are notoriously biased.

    – user1721135
    4 hours ago

















2















So many fact check reporters are out there. Most of them are biased. Worse, some themselves post fake news (Like Altnews.in; interestingly, they are IFCN qualified). Is there a standardized way to detect fake news?










share|improve this question





















  • 1





    Not really. There are a handful of things that I look for when I see something that is being widely shared, but no hard and fast rules. If there were hard and fast rules, the fake news outlets would use them to their advantage.

    – Joe C
    9 hours ago











  • Fake news watchdogs are like anti virus programs. Some of them are worse than what they are trying to prevent. Even the mainstream ones like Snopes are notoriously biased.

    – user1721135
    4 hours ago













2












2








2








So many fact check reporters are out there. Most of them are biased. Worse, some themselves post fake news (Like Altnews.in; interestingly, they are IFCN qualified). Is there a standardized way to detect fake news?










share|improve this question
















So many fact check reporters are out there. Most of them are biased. Worse, some themselves post fake news (Like Altnews.in; interestingly, they are IFCN qualified). Is there a standardized way to detect fake news?







media fake-news






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited 1 hour ago









Stormblessed

1,9462 gold badges13 silver badges39 bronze badges




1,9462 gold badges13 silver badges39 bronze badges










asked 9 hours ago









TessaracterTessaracter

1216 bronze badges




1216 bronze badges










  • 1





    Not really. There are a handful of things that I look for when I see something that is being widely shared, but no hard and fast rules. If there were hard and fast rules, the fake news outlets would use them to their advantage.

    – Joe C
    9 hours ago











  • Fake news watchdogs are like anti virus programs. Some of them are worse than what they are trying to prevent. Even the mainstream ones like Snopes are notoriously biased.

    – user1721135
    4 hours ago












  • 1





    Not really. There are a handful of things that I look for when I see something that is being widely shared, but no hard and fast rules. If there were hard and fast rules, the fake news outlets would use them to their advantage.

    – Joe C
    9 hours ago











  • Fake news watchdogs are like anti virus programs. Some of them are worse than what they are trying to prevent. Even the mainstream ones like Snopes are notoriously biased.

    – user1721135
    4 hours ago







1




1





Not really. There are a handful of things that I look for when I see something that is being widely shared, but no hard and fast rules. If there were hard and fast rules, the fake news outlets would use them to their advantage.

– Joe C
9 hours ago





Not really. There are a handful of things that I look for when I see something that is being widely shared, but no hard and fast rules. If there were hard and fast rules, the fake news outlets would use them to their advantage.

– Joe C
9 hours ago













Fake news watchdogs are like anti virus programs. Some of them are worse than what they are trying to prevent. Even the mainstream ones like Snopes are notoriously biased.

– user1721135
4 hours ago





Fake news watchdogs are like anti virus programs. Some of them are worse than what they are trying to prevent. Even the mainstream ones like Snopes are notoriously biased.

– user1721135
4 hours ago










4 Answers
4






active

oldest

votes


















3














I think there are different ways: based on disproving content, based on analysing content of loads of messages, and based on how they are spread.



Fake news



As the name says, it's fake, so proving it's fake is the obvious way to apply that label. How this is done depends on the type of fake news.



If a statement tries to present a fact, then it may be easy to point out why that's not true by making another factual statement supported by evidence.



If fake news pushes a narrative without presenting it as a fact then it's obviously harder. For example, you could write many bad reviews based on an experience which you exaggerated a lot, that's hard to verify.



Based on message content



This mostly applies to large scale fake news operations. For example, when you try to give a company a bad name by writing ten bad reviews, that probably won't be noticed if you present yourself with different identities and use different texts over a relatively long period of time.



In practice, those pushing fake news want to make an impact, for example to make something go viral. To make that happen, ten posts aren't enough. They may need tens of thousands of posts with different origins (i.e. supposedly different real people pushing them). To do that, they may use bot networks.



Another thing they'll need are different texts that push the desired message. If thousands of users of some platform suddenly post the same text (or one of a small batch), that'll be suspicious. They'll probably have to use some automated way to make posts or texts. Those can be detected and that's something scientists work on. For example in this paper: Fake News Early Detection: A Theory-driven Model. They do so by applying machine learning techniques on the content of messages.



Focusing on the accounts



Another technique focuses on the account used to push the message. As mentioned before, they need to push loads of messages to make something trending. For that, they need accounts, and you don't just get thousands of real people to play along. That, too, is something scientists look at. For example, in Supervised Machine Learning Bot Detection
Techniques to Identify Social Twitter Bots
.



The paper above looks at many factors (only in relation to Twitter), some of them (from table 2 in that paper), to give you an idea, are: description on profile, number of tweets, friends to followers ratio, has a custom profile image. And there are quote a few more.



Obviously, it's easier if you have access to the platform itself (i.e. the data Twitter has). As a company, they have access to where the tweets originate from (which i.p. address) and they can query many more tweets at once (most researchers / developers are limited to a fixed number of queries per minute).






share|improve this answer
































    2














    There's no standardized way but there are a few well established ones.



    And note that there are two questions in your question. The first is whether a piece of news is factual. The other is whether it's being spun as something it's not.



    For the factual bit, a proxy is whether the piece of news got picked up by a well established news outlet. You're familiar with their names already. Think the Wall Street Journal, the Financial Times, the Economist, the New York Times, the New Yorker, the Washington Post, the Boston Globe, the Chicago Tribute, the Miami Herald, the LA Times, the SF Chronicle, Deutsche Welle, Le Monde, and so forth; as well as news agencies like AP, AFP, or Reuters. Pick two or three to be on the safe side and that should help you weed out non-factual stories and possibly true stories of dubious importance.



    What these outlets have in common is that they tend to only report what they have fact checked. And when they're unable to fact check they make it explicit by distancing themselves with what's being reported. For instance, for a short while yesterday the Guardian was reporting that US media were reporting that Epstein committed suicide, and this was a clearcut sign that they hadn't fact checked it themselves yet.



    Just to be clear, I don't mean here that reading those is a surefire way of never running into "news" stories that turn out false -- sometimes there's a blunder. When there is, you'll find a correction more often than not (except on Bloomberg). But for the most part they do their job properly.



    Be wary, as you read those outfits, that opinion pieces are not reporting. And more generally speaking, never read opinion pieces as if they were factual, because more often than not they aren't.



    For the spun bit, you're way ahead already if you stuck to the above news outfits and take opinion pieces with a giant fistful of salt. The key here is to understand that there are three types of articles in newspapers: news articles, analysis, and opinion pieces. In general (but not always), news articles are fact based and fact checked. Analysis builds on facts from news articles and spins it. Mind that there's a growing trend to mix analysis directly into news articles. vox.com epitomizes this trend, by literally encouraging their writers to not bother finding some expert for a quote just to spell out the bloody obvious and call a cat a cat. This trend may have contributed to lower trust in journalism; or maybe not -- I honestly don't know. Opinion pieces are, more often than not, spin that is loosely based on facts from news articles -- sometimes it masquerades as trying to connect the dots, sometimes it builds upon an anecdote and turns a molehill into a mountain, and so forth. As a rule you'll do well by not reading the opinion section of most newspapers if you're only interested in what's factual.



    When all else fails, there's a number of fact checking websites and media bias references to look into if you really want to double check. Among the notorious fact checking websites: snopes.com, politifact.com, factcheck.org, etc. The two that repeatedly top searches when querying what a news source's bias is are mediabiasfactcheck.com and allsides.com






    share|improve this answer
































      1














      Is the website it is on trustworthy?



      If someone shares an article on a news outlet you haven't heard of yet, it might be useful to take a look at the frontpage. If all the articles appear to have a very obvious one-sided political slant or even go into conspiracy theory territory, you might be reading a fake-news or propaganda website.



      Or it might even not be a news website at all, but a think tank or a political organization which published something which might read like a serious news article if seen out-of-context but is actually part of their agenda.



      Is the headline phrased as a question?



      If so, then the answer to that question is usually "maybe, but probably not". If the news outlet would be sure about something, they would phrase the headline as a statement. When a news headline is phrased as a question, then that usually means that the news outline is reporting on a rumor or makes an educated guess, but they have nothing to prove it.



      Is it news or is it opinion?



      Most news outlets publish two kinds of articles: "News" and "Opinion pieces". The first should be objective. The latter represent the personal opinion of a staff member or freelancer and will make an argument for that opinion to be right. Learn to tell the difference between these two. The first might be a reliable source, but the latter is not necessarily trustworthy because it will only mention the facts which support the author's opinion.



      Who is the source?



      A good news article should mention how the journalist learned about the information. The source of the information might tell you how reliable it is.



      • If the source is a politician or political organization, keep in mind that the source has a political agenda and will only publish what furthers that agenda. Also, politicians are not universal experts on everything. If a politician talks about things they are not experts on, like psychology, civil engineering, warfare or meteorology, take what they say with a grain of salt.

      • If the source is "scientists" or "a study", verify if the study actually says that. Journalists love to blow scientific findings out of proportion and tend to interpret conclusions into scientific publications which go far further than what the publication actually says. Also, keep in mind that the quality of scientific publications vary a lot. There is a lot of bad science which gets published because the author is under pressure to publish some results. It is often not easy for laypeople to tell good science apart from bad science. But a common sniff-test of bad science is a small sample size, lack of a control group, a sample which is not representative or results which are not really statistically significant. If you want to do more "research into research" see what other scientists in the field think about this. If they point out that the study conflicts with the findings of other studies which are based on far better data or if they mention that the author might not be qualified in that field, then the story might not be as reliable as it seems. But if other scientists are just as excited about the finding as the journalist, then there might be merit to it.

      • If the source is "an expert" or "a witness", remember that humans are fallible. Experts might not actually be as knowledgeable as they pretend to be. Witnesses might remember things incorrectly or lie.

      • If the source is unnamed, you should probably not pay much attention to this at all.

      Is the information corroborated by other news outlets?



      Be careful when there is only a single news outlet which reports something. When a news is really as big as they claim, others will also report on it. If you find other news reports about something, make sure that they actually have their own sources and are not just repeating what another news outlet reported.






      share|improve this answer


































        0














        General non-specific answer:



        Use fact checkers, but make allowances for the relative magnitudes of their various biases. That is, fact checker X might be good about topic A, but a little biased on B. Fact checker Y is objective about topic B, but highly partisan with regards to A. Fact checker Z is a crank about both topics, but is a meticulous critic whenever X or Y slip up.



        It's much like using reference books which have their various quirks.






        share|improve this answer



























          Your Answer








          StackExchange.ready(function()
          var channelOptions =
          tags: "".split(" "),
          id: "475"
          ;
          initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

          StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
          // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
          if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
          StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
          createEditor();
          );

          else
          createEditor();

          );

          function createEditor()
          StackExchange.prepareEditor(
          heartbeatType: 'answer',
          autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
          convertImagesToLinks: false,
          noModals: true,
          showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
          reputationToPostImages: null,
          bindNavPrevention: true,
          postfix: "",
          imageUploader:
          brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
          contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
          allowUrls: true
          ,
          noCode: true, onDemand: true,
          discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
          ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
          );



          );













          draft saved

          draft discarded


















          StackExchange.ready(
          function ()
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fpolitics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f43624%2fis-there-a-standardised-way-to-check-fake-news%23new-answer', 'question_page');

          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown

























          4 Answers
          4






          active

          oldest

          votes








          4 Answers
          4






          active

          oldest

          votes









          active

          oldest

          votes






          active

          oldest

          votes









          3














          I think there are different ways: based on disproving content, based on analysing content of loads of messages, and based on how they are spread.



          Fake news



          As the name says, it's fake, so proving it's fake is the obvious way to apply that label. How this is done depends on the type of fake news.



          If a statement tries to present a fact, then it may be easy to point out why that's not true by making another factual statement supported by evidence.



          If fake news pushes a narrative without presenting it as a fact then it's obviously harder. For example, you could write many bad reviews based on an experience which you exaggerated a lot, that's hard to verify.



          Based on message content



          This mostly applies to large scale fake news operations. For example, when you try to give a company a bad name by writing ten bad reviews, that probably won't be noticed if you present yourself with different identities and use different texts over a relatively long period of time.



          In practice, those pushing fake news want to make an impact, for example to make something go viral. To make that happen, ten posts aren't enough. They may need tens of thousands of posts with different origins (i.e. supposedly different real people pushing them). To do that, they may use bot networks.



          Another thing they'll need are different texts that push the desired message. If thousands of users of some platform suddenly post the same text (or one of a small batch), that'll be suspicious. They'll probably have to use some automated way to make posts or texts. Those can be detected and that's something scientists work on. For example in this paper: Fake News Early Detection: A Theory-driven Model. They do so by applying machine learning techniques on the content of messages.



          Focusing on the accounts



          Another technique focuses on the account used to push the message. As mentioned before, they need to push loads of messages to make something trending. For that, they need accounts, and you don't just get thousands of real people to play along. That, too, is something scientists look at. For example, in Supervised Machine Learning Bot Detection
          Techniques to Identify Social Twitter Bots
          .



          The paper above looks at many factors (only in relation to Twitter), some of them (from table 2 in that paper), to give you an idea, are: description on profile, number of tweets, friends to followers ratio, has a custom profile image. And there are quote a few more.



          Obviously, it's easier if you have access to the platform itself (i.e. the data Twitter has). As a company, they have access to where the tweets originate from (which i.p. address) and they can query many more tweets at once (most researchers / developers are limited to a fixed number of queries per minute).






          share|improve this answer





























            3














            I think there are different ways: based on disproving content, based on analysing content of loads of messages, and based on how they are spread.



            Fake news



            As the name says, it's fake, so proving it's fake is the obvious way to apply that label. How this is done depends on the type of fake news.



            If a statement tries to present a fact, then it may be easy to point out why that's not true by making another factual statement supported by evidence.



            If fake news pushes a narrative without presenting it as a fact then it's obviously harder. For example, you could write many bad reviews based on an experience which you exaggerated a lot, that's hard to verify.



            Based on message content



            This mostly applies to large scale fake news operations. For example, when you try to give a company a bad name by writing ten bad reviews, that probably won't be noticed if you present yourself with different identities and use different texts over a relatively long period of time.



            In practice, those pushing fake news want to make an impact, for example to make something go viral. To make that happen, ten posts aren't enough. They may need tens of thousands of posts with different origins (i.e. supposedly different real people pushing them). To do that, they may use bot networks.



            Another thing they'll need are different texts that push the desired message. If thousands of users of some platform suddenly post the same text (or one of a small batch), that'll be suspicious. They'll probably have to use some automated way to make posts or texts. Those can be detected and that's something scientists work on. For example in this paper: Fake News Early Detection: A Theory-driven Model. They do so by applying machine learning techniques on the content of messages.



            Focusing on the accounts



            Another technique focuses on the account used to push the message. As mentioned before, they need to push loads of messages to make something trending. For that, they need accounts, and you don't just get thousands of real people to play along. That, too, is something scientists look at. For example, in Supervised Machine Learning Bot Detection
            Techniques to Identify Social Twitter Bots
            .



            The paper above looks at many factors (only in relation to Twitter), some of them (from table 2 in that paper), to give you an idea, are: description on profile, number of tweets, friends to followers ratio, has a custom profile image. And there are quote a few more.



            Obviously, it's easier if you have access to the platform itself (i.e. the data Twitter has). As a company, they have access to where the tweets originate from (which i.p. address) and they can query many more tweets at once (most researchers / developers are limited to a fixed number of queries per minute).






            share|improve this answer



























              3












              3








              3







              I think there are different ways: based on disproving content, based on analysing content of loads of messages, and based on how they are spread.



              Fake news



              As the name says, it's fake, so proving it's fake is the obvious way to apply that label. How this is done depends on the type of fake news.



              If a statement tries to present a fact, then it may be easy to point out why that's not true by making another factual statement supported by evidence.



              If fake news pushes a narrative without presenting it as a fact then it's obviously harder. For example, you could write many bad reviews based on an experience which you exaggerated a lot, that's hard to verify.



              Based on message content



              This mostly applies to large scale fake news operations. For example, when you try to give a company a bad name by writing ten bad reviews, that probably won't be noticed if you present yourself with different identities and use different texts over a relatively long period of time.



              In practice, those pushing fake news want to make an impact, for example to make something go viral. To make that happen, ten posts aren't enough. They may need tens of thousands of posts with different origins (i.e. supposedly different real people pushing them). To do that, they may use bot networks.



              Another thing they'll need are different texts that push the desired message. If thousands of users of some platform suddenly post the same text (or one of a small batch), that'll be suspicious. They'll probably have to use some automated way to make posts or texts. Those can be detected and that's something scientists work on. For example in this paper: Fake News Early Detection: A Theory-driven Model. They do so by applying machine learning techniques on the content of messages.



              Focusing on the accounts



              Another technique focuses on the account used to push the message. As mentioned before, they need to push loads of messages to make something trending. For that, they need accounts, and you don't just get thousands of real people to play along. That, too, is something scientists look at. For example, in Supervised Machine Learning Bot Detection
              Techniques to Identify Social Twitter Bots
              .



              The paper above looks at many factors (only in relation to Twitter), some of them (from table 2 in that paper), to give you an idea, are: description on profile, number of tweets, friends to followers ratio, has a custom profile image. And there are quote a few more.



              Obviously, it's easier if you have access to the platform itself (i.e. the data Twitter has). As a company, they have access to where the tweets originate from (which i.p. address) and they can query many more tweets at once (most researchers / developers are limited to a fixed number of queries per minute).






              share|improve this answer













              I think there are different ways: based on disproving content, based on analysing content of loads of messages, and based on how they are spread.



              Fake news



              As the name says, it's fake, so proving it's fake is the obvious way to apply that label. How this is done depends on the type of fake news.



              If a statement tries to present a fact, then it may be easy to point out why that's not true by making another factual statement supported by evidence.



              If fake news pushes a narrative without presenting it as a fact then it's obviously harder. For example, you could write many bad reviews based on an experience which you exaggerated a lot, that's hard to verify.



              Based on message content



              This mostly applies to large scale fake news operations. For example, when you try to give a company a bad name by writing ten bad reviews, that probably won't be noticed if you present yourself with different identities and use different texts over a relatively long period of time.



              In practice, those pushing fake news want to make an impact, for example to make something go viral. To make that happen, ten posts aren't enough. They may need tens of thousands of posts with different origins (i.e. supposedly different real people pushing them). To do that, they may use bot networks.



              Another thing they'll need are different texts that push the desired message. If thousands of users of some platform suddenly post the same text (or one of a small batch), that'll be suspicious. They'll probably have to use some automated way to make posts or texts. Those can be detected and that's something scientists work on. For example in this paper: Fake News Early Detection: A Theory-driven Model. They do so by applying machine learning techniques on the content of messages.



              Focusing on the accounts



              Another technique focuses on the account used to push the message. As mentioned before, they need to push loads of messages to make something trending. For that, they need accounts, and you don't just get thousands of real people to play along. That, too, is something scientists look at. For example, in Supervised Machine Learning Bot Detection
              Techniques to Identify Social Twitter Bots
              .



              The paper above looks at many factors (only in relation to Twitter), some of them (from table 2 in that paper), to give you an idea, are: description on profile, number of tweets, friends to followers ratio, has a custom profile image. And there are quote a few more.



              Obviously, it's easier if you have access to the platform itself (i.e. the data Twitter has). As a company, they have access to where the tweets originate from (which i.p. address) and they can query many more tweets at once (most researchers / developers are limited to a fixed number of queries per minute).







              share|improve this answer












              share|improve this answer



              share|improve this answer










              answered 7 hours ago









              JJJJJJ

              10.7k4 gold badges36 silver badges75 bronze badges




              10.7k4 gold badges36 silver badges75 bronze badges


























                  2














                  There's no standardized way but there are a few well established ones.



                  And note that there are two questions in your question. The first is whether a piece of news is factual. The other is whether it's being spun as something it's not.



                  For the factual bit, a proxy is whether the piece of news got picked up by a well established news outlet. You're familiar with their names already. Think the Wall Street Journal, the Financial Times, the Economist, the New York Times, the New Yorker, the Washington Post, the Boston Globe, the Chicago Tribute, the Miami Herald, the LA Times, the SF Chronicle, Deutsche Welle, Le Monde, and so forth; as well as news agencies like AP, AFP, or Reuters. Pick two or three to be on the safe side and that should help you weed out non-factual stories and possibly true stories of dubious importance.



                  What these outlets have in common is that they tend to only report what they have fact checked. And when they're unable to fact check they make it explicit by distancing themselves with what's being reported. For instance, for a short while yesterday the Guardian was reporting that US media were reporting that Epstein committed suicide, and this was a clearcut sign that they hadn't fact checked it themselves yet.



                  Just to be clear, I don't mean here that reading those is a surefire way of never running into "news" stories that turn out false -- sometimes there's a blunder. When there is, you'll find a correction more often than not (except on Bloomberg). But for the most part they do their job properly.



                  Be wary, as you read those outfits, that opinion pieces are not reporting. And more generally speaking, never read opinion pieces as if they were factual, because more often than not they aren't.



                  For the spun bit, you're way ahead already if you stuck to the above news outfits and take opinion pieces with a giant fistful of salt. The key here is to understand that there are three types of articles in newspapers: news articles, analysis, and opinion pieces. In general (but not always), news articles are fact based and fact checked. Analysis builds on facts from news articles and spins it. Mind that there's a growing trend to mix analysis directly into news articles. vox.com epitomizes this trend, by literally encouraging their writers to not bother finding some expert for a quote just to spell out the bloody obvious and call a cat a cat. This trend may have contributed to lower trust in journalism; or maybe not -- I honestly don't know. Opinion pieces are, more often than not, spin that is loosely based on facts from news articles -- sometimes it masquerades as trying to connect the dots, sometimes it builds upon an anecdote and turns a molehill into a mountain, and so forth. As a rule you'll do well by not reading the opinion section of most newspapers if you're only interested in what's factual.



                  When all else fails, there's a number of fact checking websites and media bias references to look into if you really want to double check. Among the notorious fact checking websites: snopes.com, politifact.com, factcheck.org, etc. The two that repeatedly top searches when querying what a news source's bias is are mediabiasfactcheck.com and allsides.com






                  share|improve this answer





























                    2














                    There's no standardized way but there are a few well established ones.



                    And note that there are two questions in your question. The first is whether a piece of news is factual. The other is whether it's being spun as something it's not.



                    For the factual bit, a proxy is whether the piece of news got picked up by a well established news outlet. You're familiar with their names already. Think the Wall Street Journal, the Financial Times, the Economist, the New York Times, the New Yorker, the Washington Post, the Boston Globe, the Chicago Tribute, the Miami Herald, the LA Times, the SF Chronicle, Deutsche Welle, Le Monde, and so forth; as well as news agencies like AP, AFP, or Reuters. Pick two or three to be on the safe side and that should help you weed out non-factual stories and possibly true stories of dubious importance.



                    What these outlets have in common is that they tend to only report what they have fact checked. And when they're unable to fact check they make it explicit by distancing themselves with what's being reported. For instance, for a short while yesterday the Guardian was reporting that US media were reporting that Epstein committed suicide, and this was a clearcut sign that they hadn't fact checked it themselves yet.



                    Just to be clear, I don't mean here that reading those is a surefire way of never running into "news" stories that turn out false -- sometimes there's a blunder. When there is, you'll find a correction more often than not (except on Bloomberg). But for the most part they do their job properly.



                    Be wary, as you read those outfits, that opinion pieces are not reporting. And more generally speaking, never read opinion pieces as if they were factual, because more often than not they aren't.



                    For the spun bit, you're way ahead already if you stuck to the above news outfits and take opinion pieces with a giant fistful of salt. The key here is to understand that there are three types of articles in newspapers: news articles, analysis, and opinion pieces. In general (but not always), news articles are fact based and fact checked. Analysis builds on facts from news articles and spins it. Mind that there's a growing trend to mix analysis directly into news articles. vox.com epitomizes this trend, by literally encouraging their writers to not bother finding some expert for a quote just to spell out the bloody obvious and call a cat a cat. This trend may have contributed to lower trust in journalism; or maybe not -- I honestly don't know. Opinion pieces are, more often than not, spin that is loosely based on facts from news articles -- sometimes it masquerades as trying to connect the dots, sometimes it builds upon an anecdote and turns a molehill into a mountain, and so forth. As a rule you'll do well by not reading the opinion section of most newspapers if you're only interested in what's factual.



                    When all else fails, there's a number of fact checking websites and media bias references to look into if you really want to double check. Among the notorious fact checking websites: snopes.com, politifact.com, factcheck.org, etc. The two that repeatedly top searches when querying what a news source's bias is are mediabiasfactcheck.com and allsides.com






                    share|improve this answer



























                      2












                      2








                      2







                      There's no standardized way but there are a few well established ones.



                      And note that there are two questions in your question. The first is whether a piece of news is factual. The other is whether it's being spun as something it's not.



                      For the factual bit, a proxy is whether the piece of news got picked up by a well established news outlet. You're familiar with their names already. Think the Wall Street Journal, the Financial Times, the Economist, the New York Times, the New Yorker, the Washington Post, the Boston Globe, the Chicago Tribute, the Miami Herald, the LA Times, the SF Chronicle, Deutsche Welle, Le Monde, and so forth; as well as news agencies like AP, AFP, or Reuters. Pick two or three to be on the safe side and that should help you weed out non-factual stories and possibly true stories of dubious importance.



                      What these outlets have in common is that they tend to only report what they have fact checked. And when they're unable to fact check they make it explicit by distancing themselves with what's being reported. For instance, for a short while yesterday the Guardian was reporting that US media were reporting that Epstein committed suicide, and this was a clearcut sign that they hadn't fact checked it themselves yet.



                      Just to be clear, I don't mean here that reading those is a surefire way of never running into "news" stories that turn out false -- sometimes there's a blunder. When there is, you'll find a correction more often than not (except on Bloomberg). But for the most part they do their job properly.



                      Be wary, as you read those outfits, that opinion pieces are not reporting. And more generally speaking, never read opinion pieces as if they were factual, because more often than not they aren't.



                      For the spun bit, you're way ahead already if you stuck to the above news outfits and take opinion pieces with a giant fistful of salt. The key here is to understand that there are three types of articles in newspapers: news articles, analysis, and opinion pieces. In general (but not always), news articles are fact based and fact checked. Analysis builds on facts from news articles and spins it. Mind that there's a growing trend to mix analysis directly into news articles. vox.com epitomizes this trend, by literally encouraging their writers to not bother finding some expert for a quote just to spell out the bloody obvious and call a cat a cat. This trend may have contributed to lower trust in journalism; or maybe not -- I honestly don't know. Opinion pieces are, more often than not, spin that is loosely based on facts from news articles -- sometimes it masquerades as trying to connect the dots, sometimes it builds upon an anecdote and turns a molehill into a mountain, and so forth. As a rule you'll do well by not reading the opinion section of most newspapers if you're only interested in what's factual.



                      When all else fails, there's a number of fact checking websites and media bias references to look into if you really want to double check. Among the notorious fact checking websites: snopes.com, politifact.com, factcheck.org, etc. The two that repeatedly top searches when querying what a news source's bias is are mediabiasfactcheck.com and allsides.com






                      share|improve this answer













                      There's no standardized way but there are a few well established ones.



                      And note that there are two questions in your question. The first is whether a piece of news is factual. The other is whether it's being spun as something it's not.



                      For the factual bit, a proxy is whether the piece of news got picked up by a well established news outlet. You're familiar with their names already. Think the Wall Street Journal, the Financial Times, the Economist, the New York Times, the New Yorker, the Washington Post, the Boston Globe, the Chicago Tribute, the Miami Herald, the LA Times, the SF Chronicle, Deutsche Welle, Le Monde, and so forth; as well as news agencies like AP, AFP, or Reuters. Pick two or three to be on the safe side and that should help you weed out non-factual stories and possibly true stories of dubious importance.



                      What these outlets have in common is that they tend to only report what they have fact checked. And when they're unable to fact check they make it explicit by distancing themselves with what's being reported. For instance, for a short while yesterday the Guardian was reporting that US media were reporting that Epstein committed suicide, and this was a clearcut sign that they hadn't fact checked it themselves yet.



                      Just to be clear, I don't mean here that reading those is a surefire way of never running into "news" stories that turn out false -- sometimes there's a blunder. When there is, you'll find a correction more often than not (except on Bloomberg). But for the most part they do their job properly.



                      Be wary, as you read those outfits, that opinion pieces are not reporting. And more generally speaking, never read opinion pieces as if they were factual, because more often than not they aren't.



                      For the spun bit, you're way ahead already if you stuck to the above news outfits and take opinion pieces with a giant fistful of salt. The key here is to understand that there are three types of articles in newspapers: news articles, analysis, and opinion pieces. In general (but not always), news articles are fact based and fact checked. Analysis builds on facts from news articles and spins it. Mind that there's a growing trend to mix analysis directly into news articles. vox.com epitomizes this trend, by literally encouraging their writers to not bother finding some expert for a quote just to spell out the bloody obvious and call a cat a cat. This trend may have contributed to lower trust in journalism; or maybe not -- I honestly don't know. Opinion pieces are, more often than not, spin that is loosely based on facts from news articles -- sometimes it masquerades as trying to connect the dots, sometimes it builds upon an anecdote and turns a molehill into a mountain, and so forth. As a rule you'll do well by not reading the opinion section of most newspapers if you're only interested in what's factual.



                      When all else fails, there's a number of fact checking websites and media bias references to look into if you really want to double check. Among the notorious fact checking websites: snopes.com, politifact.com, factcheck.org, etc. The two that repeatedly top searches when querying what a news source's bias is are mediabiasfactcheck.com and allsides.com







                      share|improve this answer












                      share|improve this answer



                      share|improve this answer










                      answered 7 hours ago









                      Denis de BernardyDenis de Bernardy

                      22.4k5 gold badges62 silver badges90 bronze badges




                      22.4k5 gold badges62 silver badges90 bronze badges
























                          1














                          Is the website it is on trustworthy?



                          If someone shares an article on a news outlet you haven't heard of yet, it might be useful to take a look at the frontpage. If all the articles appear to have a very obvious one-sided political slant or even go into conspiracy theory territory, you might be reading a fake-news or propaganda website.



                          Or it might even not be a news website at all, but a think tank or a political organization which published something which might read like a serious news article if seen out-of-context but is actually part of their agenda.



                          Is the headline phrased as a question?



                          If so, then the answer to that question is usually "maybe, but probably not". If the news outlet would be sure about something, they would phrase the headline as a statement. When a news headline is phrased as a question, then that usually means that the news outline is reporting on a rumor or makes an educated guess, but they have nothing to prove it.



                          Is it news or is it opinion?



                          Most news outlets publish two kinds of articles: "News" and "Opinion pieces". The first should be objective. The latter represent the personal opinion of a staff member or freelancer and will make an argument for that opinion to be right. Learn to tell the difference between these two. The first might be a reliable source, but the latter is not necessarily trustworthy because it will only mention the facts which support the author's opinion.



                          Who is the source?



                          A good news article should mention how the journalist learned about the information. The source of the information might tell you how reliable it is.



                          • If the source is a politician or political organization, keep in mind that the source has a political agenda and will only publish what furthers that agenda. Also, politicians are not universal experts on everything. If a politician talks about things they are not experts on, like psychology, civil engineering, warfare or meteorology, take what they say with a grain of salt.

                          • If the source is "scientists" or "a study", verify if the study actually says that. Journalists love to blow scientific findings out of proportion and tend to interpret conclusions into scientific publications which go far further than what the publication actually says. Also, keep in mind that the quality of scientific publications vary a lot. There is a lot of bad science which gets published because the author is under pressure to publish some results. It is often not easy for laypeople to tell good science apart from bad science. But a common sniff-test of bad science is a small sample size, lack of a control group, a sample which is not representative or results which are not really statistically significant. If you want to do more "research into research" see what other scientists in the field think about this. If they point out that the study conflicts with the findings of other studies which are based on far better data or if they mention that the author might not be qualified in that field, then the story might not be as reliable as it seems. But if other scientists are just as excited about the finding as the journalist, then there might be merit to it.

                          • If the source is "an expert" or "a witness", remember that humans are fallible. Experts might not actually be as knowledgeable as they pretend to be. Witnesses might remember things incorrectly or lie.

                          • If the source is unnamed, you should probably not pay much attention to this at all.

                          Is the information corroborated by other news outlets?



                          Be careful when there is only a single news outlet which reports something. When a news is really as big as they claim, others will also report on it. If you find other news reports about something, make sure that they actually have their own sources and are not just repeating what another news outlet reported.






                          share|improve this answer































                            1














                            Is the website it is on trustworthy?



                            If someone shares an article on a news outlet you haven't heard of yet, it might be useful to take a look at the frontpage. If all the articles appear to have a very obvious one-sided political slant or even go into conspiracy theory territory, you might be reading a fake-news or propaganda website.



                            Or it might even not be a news website at all, but a think tank or a political organization which published something which might read like a serious news article if seen out-of-context but is actually part of their agenda.



                            Is the headline phrased as a question?



                            If so, then the answer to that question is usually "maybe, but probably not". If the news outlet would be sure about something, they would phrase the headline as a statement. When a news headline is phrased as a question, then that usually means that the news outline is reporting on a rumor or makes an educated guess, but they have nothing to prove it.



                            Is it news or is it opinion?



                            Most news outlets publish two kinds of articles: "News" and "Opinion pieces". The first should be objective. The latter represent the personal opinion of a staff member or freelancer and will make an argument for that opinion to be right. Learn to tell the difference between these two. The first might be a reliable source, but the latter is not necessarily trustworthy because it will only mention the facts which support the author's opinion.



                            Who is the source?



                            A good news article should mention how the journalist learned about the information. The source of the information might tell you how reliable it is.



                            • If the source is a politician or political organization, keep in mind that the source has a political agenda and will only publish what furthers that agenda. Also, politicians are not universal experts on everything. If a politician talks about things they are not experts on, like psychology, civil engineering, warfare or meteorology, take what they say with a grain of salt.

                            • If the source is "scientists" or "a study", verify if the study actually says that. Journalists love to blow scientific findings out of proportion and tend to interpret conclusions into scientific publications which go far further than what the publication actually says. Also, keep in mind that the quality of scientific publications vary a lot. There is a lot of bad science which gets published because the author is under pressure to publish some results. It is often not easy for laypeople to tell good science apart from bad science. But a common sniff-test of bad science is a small sample size, lack of a control group, a sample which is not representative or results which are not really statistically significant. If you want to do more "research into research" see what other scientists in the field think about this. If they point out that the study conflicts with the findings of other studies which are based on far better data or if they mention that the author might not be qualified in that field, then the story might not be as reliable as it seems. But if other scientists are just as excited about the finding as the journalist, then there might be merit to it.

                            • If the source is "an expert" or "a witness", remember that humans are fallible. Experts might not actually be as knowledgeable as they pretend to be. Witnesses might remember things incorrectly or lie.

                            • If the source is unnamed, you should probably not pay much attention to this at all.

                            Is the information corroborated by other news outlets?



                            Be careful when there is only a single news outlet which reports something. When a news is really as big as they claim, others will also report on it. If you find other news reports about something, make sure that they actually have their own sources and are not just repeating what another news outlet reported.






                            share|improve this answer





























                              1












                              1








                              1







                              Is the website it is on trustworthy?



                              If someone shares an article on a news outlet you haven't heard of yet, it might be useful to take a look at the frontpage. If all the articles appear to have a very obvious one-sided political slant or even go into conspiracy theory territory, you might be reading a fake-news or propaganda website.



                              Or it might even not be a news website at all, but a think tank or a political organization which published something which might read like a serious news article if seen out-of-context but is actually part of their agenda.



                              Is the headline phrased as a question?



                              If so, then the answer to that question is usually "maybe, but probably not". If the news outlet would be sure about something, they would phrase the headline as a statement. When a news headline is phrased as a question, then that usually means that the news outline is reporting on a rumor or makes an educated guess, but they have nothing to prove it.



                              Is it news or is it opinion?



                              Most news outlets publish two kinds of articles: "News" and "Opinion pieces". The first should be objective. The latter represent the personal opinion of a staff member or freelancer and will make an argument for that opinion to be right. Learn to tell the difference between these two. The first might be a reliable source, but the latter is not necessarily trustworthy because it will only mention the facts which support the author's opinion.



                              Who is the source?



                              A good news article should mention how the journalist learned about the information. The source of the information might tell you how reliable it is.



                              • If the source is a politician or political organization, keep in mind that the source has a political agenda and will only publish what furthers that agenda. Also, politicians are not universal experts on everything. If a politician talks about things they are not experts on, like psychology, civil engineering, warfare or meteorology, take what they say with a grain of salt.

                              • If the source is "scientists" or "a study", verify if the study actually says that. Journalists love to blow scientific findings out of proportion and tend to interpret conclusions into scientific publications which go far further than what the publication actually says. Also, keep in mind that the quality of scientific publications vary a lot. There is a lot of bad science which gets published because the author is under pressure to publish some results. It is often not easy for laypeople to tell good science apart from bad science. But a common sniff-test of bad science is a small sample size, lack of a control group, a sample which is not representative or results which are not really statistically significant. If you want to do more "research into research" see what other scientists in the field think about this. If they point out that the study conflicts with the findings of other studies which are based on far better data or if they mention that the author might not be qualified in that field, then the story might not be as reliable as it seems. But if other scientists are just as excited about the finding as the journalist, then there might be merit to it.

                              • If the source is "an expert" or "a witness", remember that humans are fallible. Experts might not actually be as knowledgeable as they pretend to be. Witnesses might remember things incorrectly or lie.

                              • If the source is unnamed, you should probably not pay much attention to this at all.

                              Is the information corroborated by other news outlets?



                              Be careful when there is only a single news outlet which reports something. When a news is really as big as they claim, others will also report on it. If you find other news reports about something, make sure that they actually have their own sources and are not just repeating what another news outlet reported.






                              share|improve this answer















                              Is the website it is on trustworthy?



                              If someone shares an article on a news outlet you haven't heard of yet, it might be useful to take a look at the frontpage. If all the articles appear to have a very obvious one-sided political slant or even go into conspiracy theory territory, you might be reading a fake-news or propaganda website.



                              Or it might even not be a news website at all, but a think tank or a political organization which published something which might read like a serious news article if seen out-of-context but is actually part of their agenda.



                              Is the headline phrased as a question?



                              If so, then the answer to that question is usually "maybe, but probably not". If the news outlet would be sure about something, they would phrase the headline as a statement. When a news headline is phrased as a question, then that usually means that the news outline is reporting on a rumor or makes an educated guess, but they have nothing to prove it.



                              Is it news or is it opinion?



                              Most news outlets publish two kinds of articles: "News" and "Opinion pieces". The first should be objective. The latter represent the personal opinion of a staff member or freelancer and will make an argument for that opinion to be right. Learn to tell the difference between these two. The first might be a reliable source, but the latter is not necessarily trustworthy because it will only mention the facts which support the author's opinion.



                              Who is the source?



                              A good news article should mention how the journalist learned about the information. The source of the information might tell you how reliable it is.



                              • If the source is a politician or political organization, keep in mind that the source has a political agenda and will only publish what furthers that agenda. Also, politicians are not universal experts on everything. If a politician talks about things they are not experts on, like psychology, civil engineering, warfare or meteorology, take what they say with a grain of salt.

                              • If the source is "scientists" or "a study", verify if the study actually says that. Journalists love to blow scientific findings out of proportion and tend to interpret conclusions into scientific publications which go far further than what the publication actually says. Also, keep in mind that the quality of scientific publications vary a lot. There is a lot of bad science which gets published because the author is under pressure to publish some results. It is often not easy for laypeople to tell good science apart from bad science. But a common sniff-test of bad science is a small sample size, lack of a control group, a sample which is not representative or results which are not really statistically significant. If you want to do more "research into research" see what other scientists in the field think about this. If they point out that the study conflicts with the findings of other studies which are based on far better data or if they mention that the author might not be qualified in that field, then the story might not be as reliable as it seems. But if other scientists are just as excited about the finding as the journalist, then there might be merit to it.

                              • If the source is "an expert" or "a witness", remember that humans are fallible. Experts might not actually be as knowledgeable as they pretend to be. Witnesses might remember things incorrectly or lie.

                              • If the source is unnamed, you should probably not pay much attention to this at all.

                              Is the information corroborated by other news outlets?



                              Be careful when there is only a single news outlet which reports something. When a news is really as big as they claim, others will also report on it. If you find other news reports about something, make sure that they actually have their own sources and are not just repeating what another news outlet reported.







                              share|improve this answer














                              share|improve this answer



                              share|improve this answer








                              edited 6 hours ago

























                              answered 7 hours ago









                              PhilippPhilipp

                              43.7k15 gold badges131 silver badges159 bronze badges




                              43.7k15 gold badges131 silver badges159 bronze badges
























                                  0














                                  General non-specific answer:



                                  Use fact checkers, but make allowances for the relative magnitudes of their various biases. That is, fact checker X might be good about topic A, but a little biased on B. Fact checker Y is objective about topic B, but highly partisan with regards to A. Fact checker Z is a crank about both topics, but is a meticulous critic whenever X or Y slip up.



                                  It's much like using reference books which have their various quirks.






                                  share|improve this answer





























                                    0














                                    General non-specific answer:



                                    Use fact checkers, but make allowances for the relative magnitudes of their various biases. That is, fact checker X might be good about topic A, but a little biased on B. Fact checker Y is objective about topic B, but highly partisan with regards to A. Fact checker Z is a crank about both topics, but is a meticulous critic whenever X or Y slip up.



                                    It's much like using reference books which have their various quirks.






                                    share|improve this answer



























                                      0












                                      0








                                      0







                                      General non-specific answer:



                                      Use fact checkers, but make allowances for the relative magnitudes of their various biases. That is, fact checker X might be good about topic A, but a little biased on B. Fact checker Y is objective about topic B, but highly partisan with regards to A. Fact checker Z is a crank about both topics, but is a meticulous critic whenever X or Y slip up.



                                      It's much like using reference books which have their various quirks.






                                      share|improve this answer













                                      General non-specific answer:



                                      Use fact checkers, but make allowances for the relative magnitudes of their various biases. That is, fact checker X might be good about topic A, but a little biased on B. Fact checker Y is objective about topic B, but highly partisan with regards to A. Fact checker Z is a crank about both topics, but is a meticulous critic whenever X or Y slip up.



                                      It's much like using reference books which have their various quirks.







                                      share|improve this answer












                                      share|improve this answer



                                      share|improve this answer










                                      answered 7 hours ago









                                      agcagc

                                      6,57520 silver badges58 bronze badges




                                      6,57520 silver badges58 bronze badges






























                                          draft saved

                                          draft discarded
















































                                          Thanks for contributing an answer to Politics Stack Exchange!


                                          • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                                          But avoid


                                          • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                                          • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

                                          To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                                          draft saved


                                          draft discarded














                                          StackExchange.ready(
                                          function ()
                                          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fpolitics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f43624%2fis-there-a-standardised-way-to-check-fake-news%23new-answer', 'question_page');

                                          );

                                          Post as a guest















                                          Required, but never shown





















































                                          Required, but never shown














                                          Required, but never shown












                                          Required, but never shown







                                          Required, but never shown

































                                          Required, but never shown














                                          Required, but never shown












                                          Required, but never shown







                                          Required, but never shown







                                          Popular posts from this blog

                                          19. јануар Садржај Догађаји Рођења Смрти Празници и дани сећања Види још Референце Мени за навигацијуу

                                          Israel Cuprins Etimologie | Istorie | Geografie | Politică | Demografie | Educație | Economie | Cultură | Note explicative | Note bibliografice | Bibliografie | Legături externe | Meniu de navigaresite web oficialfacebooktweeterGoogle+Instagramcanal YouTubeInstagramtextmodificaremodificarewww.technion.ac.ilnew.huji.ac.ilwww.weizmann.ac.ilwww1.biu.ac.ilenglish.tau.ac.ilwww.haifa.ac.ilin.bgu.ac.ilwww.openu.ac.ilwww.ariel.ac.ilCIA FactbookHarta Israelului"Negotiating Jerusalem," Palestine–Israel JournalThe Schizoid Nature of Modern Hebrew: A Slavic Language in Search of a Semitic Past„Arabic in Israel: an official language and a cultural bridge”„Latest Population Statistics for Israel”„Israel Population”„Tables”„Report for Selected Countries and Subjects”Human Development Report 2016: Human Development for Everyone„Distribution of family income - Gini index”The World FactbookJerusalem Law„Israel”„Israel”„Zionist Leaders: David Ben-Gurion 1886–1973”„The status of Jerusalem”„Analysis: Kadima's big plans”„Israel's Hard-Learned Lessons”„The Legacy of Undefined Borders, Tel Aviv Notes No. 40, 5 iunie 2002”„Israel Journal: A Land Without Borders”„Population”„Israel closes decade with population of 7.5 million”Time Series-DataBank„Selected Statistics on Jerusalem Day 2007 (Hebrew)”Golan belongs to Syria, Druze protestGlobal Survey 2006: Middle East Progress Amid Global Gains in FreedomWHO: Life expectancy in Israel among highest in the worldInternational Monetary Fund, World Economic Outlook Database, April 2011: Nominal GDP list of countries. Data for the year 2010.„Israel's accession to the OECD”Popular Opinion„On the Move”Hosea 12:5„Walking the Bible Timeline”„Palestine: History”„Return to Zion”An invention called 'the Jewish people' – Haaretz – Israel NewsoriginalJewish and Non-Jewish Population of Palestine-Israel (1517–2004)ImmigrationJewishvirtuallibrary.orgChapter One: The Heralders of Zionism„The birth of modern Israel: A scrap of paper that changed history”„League of Nations: The Mandate for Palestine, 24 iulie 1922”The Population of Palestine Prior to 1948originalBackground Paper No. 47 (ST/DPI/SER.A/47)History: Foreign DominationTwo Hundred and Seventh Plenary Meeting„Israel (Labor Zionism)”Population, by Religion and Population GroupThe Suez CrisisAdolf EichmannJustice Ministry Reply to Amnesty International Report„The Interregnum”Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs – The Palestinian National Covenant- July 1968Research on terrorism: trends, achievements & failuresThe Routledge Atlas of the Arab–Israeli conflict: The Complete History of the Struggle and the Efforts to Resolve It"George Habash, Palestinian Terrorism Tactician, Dies at 82."„1973: Arab states attack Israeli forces”Agranat Commission„Has Israel Annexed East Jerusalem?”original„After 4 Years, Intifada Still Smolders”From the End of the Cold War to 2001originalThe Oslo Accords, 1993Israel-PLO Recognition – Exchange of Letters between PM Rabin and Chairman Arafat – Sept 9- 1993Foundation for Middle East PeaceSources of Population Growth: Total Israeli Population and Settler Population, 1991–2003original„Israel marks Rabin assassination”The Wye River Memorandumoriginal„West Bank barrier route disputed, Israeli missile kills 2”"Permanent Ceasefire to Be Based on Creation Of Buffer Zone Free of Armed Personnel Other than UN, Lebanese Forces"„Hezbollah kills 8 soldiers, kidnaps two in offensive on northern border”„Olmert confirms peace talks with Syria”„Battleground Gaza: Israeli ground forces invade the strip”„IDF begins Gaza troop withdrawal, hours after ending 3-week offensive”„THE LAND: Geography and Climate”„Area of districts, sub-districts, natural regions and lakes”„Israel - Geography”„Makhteshim Country”Israel and the Palestinian Territories„Makhtesh Ramon”„The Living Dead Sea”„Temperatures reach record high in Pakistan”„Climate Extremes In Israel”Israel in figures„Deuteronom”„JNF: 240 million trees planted since 1901”„Vegetation of Israel and Neighboring Countries”Environmental Law in Israel„Executive branch”„Israel's election process explained”„The Electoral System in Israel”„Constitution for Israel”„All 120 incoming Knesset members”„Statul ISRAEL”„The Judiciary: The Court System”„Israel's high court unique in region”„Israel and the International Criminal Court: A Legal Battlefield”„Localities and population, by population group, district, sub-district and natural region”„Israel: Districts, Major Cities, Urban Localities & Metropolitan Areas”„Israel-Egypt Relations: Background & Overview of Peace Treaty”„Solana to Haaretz: New Rules of War Needed for Age of Terror”„Israel's Announcement Regarding Settlements”„United Nations Security Council Resolution 497”„Security Council resolution 478 (1980) on the status of Jerusalem”„Arabs will ask U.N. to seek razing of Israeli wall”„Olmert: Willing to trade land for peace”„Mapping Peace between Syria and Israel”„Egypt: Israel must accept the land-for-peace formula”„Israel: Age structure from 2005 to 2015”„Global, regional, and national disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) for 306 diseases and injuries and healthy life expectancy (HALE) for 188 countries, 1990–2013: quantifying the epidemiological transition”10.1016/S0140-6736(15)61340-X„World Health Statistics 2014”„Life expectancy for Israeli men world's 4th highest”„Family Structure and Well-Being Across Israel's Diverse Population”„Fertility among Jewish and Muslim Women in Israel, by Level of Religiosity, 1979-2009”„Israel leaders in birth rate, but poverty major challenge”„Ethnic Groups”„Israel's population: Over 8.5 million”„Israel - Ethnic groups”„Jews, by country of origin and age”„Minority Communities in Israel: Background & Overview”„Israel”„Language in Israel”„Selected Data from the 2011 Social Survey on Mastery of the Hebrew Language and Usage of Languages”„Religions”„5 facts about Israeli Druze, a unique religious and ethnic group”„Israël”Israel Country Study Guide„Haredi city in Negev – blessing or curse?”„New town Harish harbors hopes of being more than another Pleasantville”„List of localities, in alphabetical order”„Muncitorii români, doriți în Israel”„Prietenia româno-israeliană la nevoie se cunoaște”„The Higher Education System in Israel”„Middle East”„Academic Ranking of World Universities 2016”„Israel”„Israel”„Jewish Nobel Prize Winners”„All Nobel Prizes in Literature”„All Nobel Peace Prizes”„All Prizes in Economic Sciences”„All Nobel Prizes in Chemistry”„List of Fields Medallists”„Sakharov Prize”„Țara care și-a sfidat "destinul" și se bate umăr la umăr cu Silicon Valley”„Apple's R&D center in Israel grew to about 800 employees”„Tim Cook: Apple's Herzliya R&D center second-largest in world”„Lecții de economie de la Israel”„Land use”Israel Investment and Business GuideA Country Study: IsraelCentral Bureau of StatisticsFlorin Diaconu, „Kadima: Flexibilitate și pragmatism, dar nici un compromis în chestiuni vitale", în Revista Institutului Diplomatic Român, anul I, numărul I, semestrul I, 2006, pp. 71-72Florin Diaconu, „Likud: Dreapta israeliană constant opusă retrocedării teritoriilor cureite prin luptă în 1967", în Revista Institutului Diplomatic Român, anul I, numărul I, semestrul I, 2006, pp. 73-74MassadaIsraelul a crescut in 50 de ani cât alte state intr-un mileniuIsrael Government PortalIsraelIsraelIsraelmmmmmXX451232cb118646298(data)4027808-634110000 0004 0372 0767n7900328503691455-bb46-37e3-91d2-cb064a35ffcc1003570400564274ge1294033523775214929302638955X146498911146498911

                                          Кастелфранко ди Сопра Становништво Референце Спољашње везе Мени за навигацију43°37′18″ СГШ; 11°33′32″ ИГД / 43.62156° СГШ; 11.55885° ИГД / 43.62156; 11.5588543°37′18″ СГШ; 11°33′32″ ИГД / 43.62156° СГШ; 11.55885° ИГД / 43.62156; 11.558853179688„The GeoNames geographical database”„Istituto Nazionale di Statistica”проширитиууWorldCat156923403n850174324558639-1cb14643287r(подаци)