We need it for making sound decisions about our future, but regrettably, we are living in an era that does not value truth. Emotional responses and a desire for kindness or the sensational, seem to have displaced a quest for truth. Whether we are talking about products offered for sale or news stories being sold by media outlets, or even statements made by government agencies or reports posted by academic institutions, getting to the “truth” has become a topic often talked about, but is, in reality, disregarded and oftentimes maligned. Even our modern “fact checkers” fail to follow the path to truth.

Since we now live in a day in which deceit is rampant, if we want to be responsible and an asset to our friends, family and community, we must become “truth detectives.”  

How do we become truth detectives? We must exit from the familiar path of having our ears tickled by what we want to hear, to instead, climb the narrow path that leads to truth? To help with this task, here are 10-tips written by a former police detective to help us evaluate what is true in this age of deceit.

1. Be Objective

It sounds straighforward, but it’s not. First, we must avoid looking for news stories or information to support our existing viewpoint. Instead, we must consider the known details of each story and then consider what is not known and might be relevant. Look for details that are likely to be suppressed due to the prejudice of the reporter or the source of the information. What are the different agendas that might influence their reporting? What are they selling? 

Look, too, for opinions that might be injected into the story, especially when facts are scarce. Be suspicious. Truth is often elusive.

When photos are provided, whether it be in a news story or a product offered for sale, look for evidence that they are either stock photos or old pictures. If you have access to the Internet, there are apps such as “Lens” to let you search for a photo to find where it originated. These searches will not always be rewarded with success, but if you have access to these tools, use them. Look too, for evidence of Photoshop alterations or AI manipulation. If you uncover information that the photo is not from the current incident, the veracity of the story (or product offering) should be immediately suspect. It may be false, the facts misrepresented, or a premature report that is incomplete.

If a story or product headline is sensational and the story itself does not provide facts to support it, extra scrutiny should be applied to determine motivations. Is it ‘clickbait’ to attract attention, or is another agenda in play? With this, the story’s narrative is suspect if there is a lot of talk but little substance to what is being said. Whether a video for a product being sold or a news story being touted, excessive words without substance should flip up your mental warning flag.

2. Identify the sources of the information.

If the article cites obscure sources, such as “government officials,” “experts,” “insiders who wish to remain anonymous,” or other sources that you cannot verify, the entire report should be considered suspect. A newsworthy article will provide the names of individuals who provided the information and their affiliation, so that the information can be checked and validated as authoritative or at least authentic.

It’s worth noting that if you verify the information in a story is inaccurate, it may be accidental, not intentional. While doing research for my various books, I have repeatedly discovered that news reports were blatantly false even when the source of the information was clearly cited. These errors are inexcusable yet understandable. Most reporters do not have the skills needed for serious analysis. 

With my research on the topics I write about, I’ve found it’s not unusual for a reporter to misunderstand a legal action, technical report or study. They simply don’t have the professional skills. Even well-intentioned reporters fall victim to laziness or their employer’s demand to deliver their reports quickly.

3. Watch for news reports that parrot the same theme or viewpoint.

When breaking news or significant news stories use essentially the same talking points, this usually indicates they come from the same source. This becomes ominous when the news agency does not reveal that source. 

As consumers of news information, these are telltale signs that the reporter is failing to investigate and be objective. This lack of an analytical approach to journalism becomes even more apparent when multiple news agencies use the same talking points. 

Today, it’s not unusual for both broadcast and print journalists to use the same sensational words. This reflects, at best, laziness, but too often it is an indicator of intentional group-think news manipulation. When a news outlet keeps beating a drum by using sensational words rather than presenting facts, we must ask if they are seeking to influence the public rather than report unadulterated truth. 

4. ALWAYS investigate the news source.

Much like the investigator’s addage, “follow the money,” for anything important we’ve got to get to the source. If the news story is delivered by a teleprompter-reading talking head, or the print article indicates “staff” or some other obscure authorship, then the information is difficult to validate. 

If a specific organization or entity is listed as the author and a link is not provided, conduct an Internet search to uncover more information on the source. If the origin cannot be validated, the story must be considered to be wholly without merit unless a corroborating source is found.

Finding the truth is further obscured by news sources with their own unstated prejudices and, therefore, the temptation to twist the story to advance their political agenda. Few news sources are genuinely objective. Consequently, we must look at their past reports to see if a pattern of lopsided or prejudicial reporting emerges. 

5. Conduct an Internet and Podcast search to find other stories on the same topic.

Search engines such as Google are notorious for filtering, screening, and actively obstructing a search for information that does not align with their corporate agenda. Unfortunately, the problem is not just with Google, since many search engines still use the Google algorithm as the backend for their search tools. Therefore, for anything more important than looking up a favorite holiday recipe, it is essential to use Internet search tools that are free of bias. 

Once articles on the topics are found, compare the details in each, and filter-out the opinion of the author and news source. While expert opinions may or may not be valuable, the opinion of a news reporter is rarely useful.

Increasingly, search tools are using artificial intelligence (AI) to deliver information. If this is the method used by your search engine, discard it and use another. The synopsis or amalgamation of information provided by AI is generally useless for those who are honestly seeking truth. 

6. Seek multiple sources of information, including those with opposing viewpoints.

Very often, truth can only be found by comparing different viewpoints. Keep in mind that a different viewpoint may not be intentionally misleading.

For example, back when I was a police detective and investigating my first bank robbery, I became frustrated and a bit mystified. After interviewing a dozen eyewitnesses, none agreed on a description of the perpetrators. None. These people were not being intentionally misleading or abstruse; they were simply confused and still reeling from the fear they experienced. With this common reaction in mind, we must be careful to not be quick to believe anything not corroborated by multiple, unrelated witnesses or sources. Numerous news channels delivering the same story is not the same as multiple witnesses.

8. Internet News

Check the URL of the website. If it looks legitimate, visit the website site itself, not just the link to the story. Look for indicators of skewed or biased viewpoints. 

For example, a pharmaceutical company may intentionally fail to provide negative information on a drug. Similarly, a commercial enterprise or nonprofit organization is not automatically trustworthy, either, especially if the report advances their agenda. This is also true for educational institutions, research groups, and government entities. If any source is funded by someone who might have a motivation to skew the information, it must be scrutinized. 

Regrettably, funding sources and agendas, as well as relationships between people and organizations can be obscure. This makes reports by true investigative reporters and whistleblowers additionally valuable, and therefore worth seeking. Knowledgeable people who comment on the source of information or a story, is often the first step to validate its reliability. Still, information provided by only one source must remain entirely suspect until it is verified by at least one unrelated source.

9. Disregard Social Media Posts

While social media often brings forward issues or events that have recently occurred and are not yet reported by other media sources, social media platforms are notorious for promoting misinformation and inaccurate information. Therefore, use these posts to launch an investigation into a topic; not for reliable news or trustworthy information.

10. Social bubbles can be counterproductive for uncovering truth.

Opinions and information provided by friends, family, and the organizations we are connected to and value, cannot be expected to provide unbiased information. The opinions of those we trust in our day-to-day lives may be a useful for bringing forward topics, we can’t expect our social bubbles to provide expertise on every important topic.  

As President Ronald Reagan frequently said, “Trust but verify.” This does not mean we don’t trust those we care about. It is simply a reminder that we have a personal responsibility to investigate truth and accuracy. 

Conclusion:

We are living in an era where propaganda has become sophisticated and rampant. With this, the speed of life and being constantly inundated with unfiltered news content, can make us jaded and too busy to seek the truth. But if we don’t do our part to be truth-finders, truth-evaluators, and truth-purveyors, our civilization will not survive. Our society will become increasingly divided as the skills needed for critical thinking and logic are abandoned.

We are all influencers. Even if our influence is limited to a few friends, family, coworkers, and neighbors, we can make a difference in the world by filtering information to find truth, and then applying personal experience and wisdom to it so we can construct informed conclusions. This we can share, debate, discuss, or at least present to those we may be able to influence. 

An important aspect of this is to help others engage in this process, along with a desire for truth rather than emotion-driven action. We will not be able to experience healthy communities if we fail in this task.

The need to verify information to see what is true is not a new necessity. For millennia this has been an issue; it’s not a new task. In the following two-thousand-year-old example, responsible people were being called out and commended for doing their homework, even when the information came from a highly respected source:

 “Now these people [Bereans] were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily, to see whether these things were so.”

Holy Bible, Acts 17:11  NASB

The Truth Project. For those who want to dive deeper into the historic underpinnings of this quest, this video series is a great resource. Produced by Coldwater Media and Focus on the Family, and hosted by Del Tackett, this 13-part documentary is useful for personal study as well as small groups.