Research Note
Claim Source Comparison Record
Source comparison begins with one claim that can be proved, narrowed, or rejected. It does not begin by collecting outlets that appear to represent opposing teams.
Claim Source Comparison Record
Core method
Source comparison begins with one claim that can be proved, narrowed, or rejected. It does not begin by collecting outlets that appear to represent opposing teams.
The Digital Inquiry Group research summary Lateral Reading and the Nature of Expertise reports that professional fact checkers left unfamiliar sites, opened new tabs, and investigated the organization and claim elsewhere. The method is useful because a polished page can only tell the reader what its publisher chose to present.
Evidence roles
| Role | Question |
|---|---|
| Claim origin | Who first made the specific statement, and when? |
| Primary record | What document, dataset, filing, recording, code, or direct observation bears on it? |
| Independent scrutiny | Who examined the evidence without simply repeating the origin? |
| Relevant expertise | Does the source have methods and domain knowledge suited to this claim? |
| Disconfirming evidence | What credible evidence would narrow or contradict the claim? |
| Corrections and version | Has the record changed, been corrected, or gone stale? |
| Incentive and access | What relationships, funding, access, or commercial interests matter? |
Source diversity is not a vote. Ten articles that all cite one press release are one evidence path. A falsehood does not become balanced because it is placed next to a supported finding. Disagreement is useful when it exposes different data, definitions, methods, or uncertainty.
Conclusion language
End with the narrowest statement the evidence supports. Use "the filing reports," "the experiment found in this setting," or "the available record does not establish" instead of broad certainty. Record the date and the evidence that would change the conclusion.
Worked-example boundary
The public guide may use the claim "personalized feeds cause political polarization." It should separate evidence that feeds personalize exposure from evidence that an intervention changed attitudes. The 2023 Nature Facebook experiment is suitable precisely because its exposure and attitude results differ.
Sources
Follow the evidence.
- support.google.com: 14328491support.google.com
- nature.com: s41586 023 06297 wnature.com
- solomonmg.github.io: bakshy 2015 exposuresolomonmg.github.io
- ftc.gov: federal trade commission announces updated advertising guides combat deceptive reviews endorsementsftc.gov
- FTC Disclosures 101ftc.gov
- support.google.com: 16533387support.google.com
- spec.c2pa.org: Explainerspec.c2pa.org
- youtu.be: GhR9NuCQwlMyoutu.be
- FTC Endorsement Guides questions and answersftc.gov
- support.google.com: 2801947support.google.com
- cor.inquirygroup.org: lateral reading and the nature of expertisecor.inquirygroup.org
- support.google.com: 6342839support.google.com
- newsroom.tiktok.com: how tiktok recommends videos for younewsroom.tiktok.com
- open.spotify.com: 6pC7h1LY88I1LnfvH6h4dvopen.spotify.com
- daltonanderson.ghost.io: ai influencers and the dangers of a filtered realitydaltonanderson.ghost.io