This story makes you angry. Is it true?

You read a sentence. It hits a nerve. Your finger is already moving towards “Share”.

Perhaps the story is true. Perhaps something crucial is missing. Your anger deserves a reliable foundation.

1. Where did the claim come from?

Look for the original source. A screenshot is not evidence by itself. Is there a study behind the number? A full speech behind the quotation? If all you find is more posts repeating the same sentence, its origin remains unclear.

Five posts can lead back to a single source

For example: five accounts link to two articles. Both articles rely on the same press release. You have seen five ways of spreading a claim, not five independent confirmations. That does not disprove the claim. It limits what repetition establishes.

Look beyond how many links accompany a claim. Do they contribute their own data, observations or a transparent examination of the original material? A different byline does not turn repetition into independent reporting.

A respected name cannot replace good evidence

In a study by Dawson and colleagues (2024), participants read six texts about whether peat should count as a renewable energy source. Sources with social authority received high ratings even with unreliable or irrelevant content. That is an observed pitfall, not isolated proof that the source’s standing caused the rating. The Finnish-speaking, mostly highly educated sample also does not represent everyday news use as a whole.

My conclusion: expertise matters. Also ask whether it fits the subject and whether the source actually supports its claim. That applies to respected institutions and to an account you enjoy following.

2. Does the context fit?

Check the date, place and framing. An authentic image can accompany a false story. A statement can mean something different in its full context.

3. What supports the conclusion?

Does the evidence establish what the headline claims? One person’s experience does not automatically answer a question about millions of people. Look for an independent assessment and examine what supports it.

What does “twice as common” mean?

An invented example: something affects one person in a hundred in one group, and two in a hundred in another. “Twice as common” is correct. So is “a difference of one person per hundred”. You need both descriptions to understand the scale.

Even a real difference does not explain its cause. The groups might also differ in age, living conditions or how measurements were taken. A study needs to examine such explanations before “occurs together with” becomes “causes”.

“Still unclear” is an honest answer

You do not have to judge every story immediately. Or pass on everything that moves you.

My recommendation: if the crucial evidence is missing, do not share the claim as a fact for now. If you want to discuss it, name the question that remains open.

Calm presentation does not prove truth. Emotional presentation does not prove falsehood. Reasons and evidence matter, including here at Agora.

The same standard applies here

My commitments influence the questions I ask. Neither disclosing them nor criticising different political camps in equal quantities proves objectivity. Each claim still needs scrutiny. A well-founded objection to my conclusion belongs in that examination, even when I dislike it.

This essay develops my Instagram post “You see five posts. Perhaps there is only one source.” It has been revised as a standalone web article; time-sensitive examples from the original post have not been carried over without review.

Written with support from generative AI. Editorial responsibility: Marcus Machon.