How To Spot Fake News (7 Simple Tips)

There's been a lot of talk about Facebook taking steps to weed out "fake news." When we think of the subject, we often think of political news. Though this blog describes fake news made for political agendas, there is a lot of fake news out there that isn't political - "Milk is Bad For Humans But the Big Dairy Corporations Don't Want You To Know It Because the Moon Landing Was Fake!" - but can still be scrutinized with the following tips. So, here are some characteristics that can help you spot a fake news story, or an opinion piece that calls itself news. Little things we often don't consider:

1. The article's headline is in all-caps.
2. The "news site"'s Facebook page has a profile picture of Ronald Reagan, often displayed in front of an American flag.
(This is sometimes also true with a picture of Bernie Sanders in front of an American flag, but it's far more common with President Reagan's mug...I can't fathom why that is.)
3. The article's headline is a run-on sentence. Ex: "Obama Bans the Word Christmas From Military Christmas Ceremonies to Destroy the First Amendment and Sacrifice America to Muslim Agenda Hey Mickey You're So Fine You're So Fine You Blow My Mind Hey Mickey"
4. The article's headline has more than one exclamation point. Or in many cases, a single exclamation point.
5. Multiple spelling errors.
6. A news article's headline should sum up the event it describes in the most succinct way possible, not give vague clues and hints as to what the reader will read: "You'll Never Believe What Kind of Scandal Ted Cruz is Involved In," or "Lindsey Graham Just Scored a Victory For Lower Taxes in the Most Epic Way Possible." These kinds of headlines are also strongly suspect.
7. The article's story has not been corroborated by a source not displaying the above symptoms. This is very important. In fact, it should be your only tip.

The First Amendment is a great blessing we enjoy in our country, but it does not protect against slander. And, as I learned from watching Judge Mathis, in order for something to be slanderous, it must 1.) be proven to be untrue, and 2.) cause damage to the reputation of the person it addresses. I urge us all to think of that the next time we're about to share a "news" article without at least a Snopes check.
The inevitable reply to that might be, "I think the fact-checkers should be fact-checked." Yes, I too find facts to be terribly inconvenient when they rain on some little part of my agenda. Like when I didn't believe in peanut butter. I was confronted with undeniable evidence that peanut butter exists, and I checked the fact-checkers, desperately trying to prove them wrong, even if it took unscrupulous articles to pacify my denial. But, "facts are stubborn things."
Peanut butter is real.

"I tell you, on the day of judgment people will give account for every careless word they speak." -Matthew 12:36

A Thing is a Thing, Not What You Think About That Thing

There's a copy-n-paste post going around the ol' Facebook that, to paraphrase, asks people the question, "If my faith in Christ does no harm to you, why are you so against it?" I tend to avoid copy-n-paste things, but one comment on such a post caught my eye:

"lol this is so dumb. Your faith is the biggest argument against equal rights for the LGBT community, the reason why planned parent hood is being defunded , religion is the reason for all of the war in the world. Dumb, gullible, ignorant and oppressive. That's the harm it brings"

What the person who wrote this comment failed to realize is that the Christian faith in itself is not to blame, but people who misunderstand and misuse it.
One doesn't need faith to harm people - Hitler had no faith in any deity, yet he persecuted gays, much like Che Guevara, also an atheist. Not to mention the Marxist atheism that led the likes of Stalin to kill and imprison countless religious Russians. Rather, it is the misuse of a faith (or lack thereof) that causes harm. If a Christian tries to legislate morality by instilling their belief into law, that is misuse of that faith. I cannot support the decision to outlaw gay marriage due to my religious belief, which does not condone it. Concerning any similar situation, how can I hold non-believers to a standard that even I, a believer, can't live up to? That's why I need Jesus, after all.
There are exceptions of course: if a faith teaches against things that are universally agreed upon (well, sort of) by everyone of all faiths and lacks of faith: like murder, robbery, rape, etc. On the flip side, if a faith, condones and encourages something dangerous, like blowing up things in order to bring people into submission to their deity, then that faith must then be considered harmful.

But even the Bible does not teach that faith is something to be imposed on people, but must be a choice. The Crusades, the Inquisitions, were all wrong. So, again, it's not the faith that brings harm - it's those who misuse it. If I claimed Christopher Hitchens was risen from the grave and wanted me to oppress gays, when that's clearly not true, it would be no reflection on Mr. Hitchens - it would be only the result of my own deluded, erroneous use of his name. Likewise with Christianity.

A simple way to put it: a thing is a thing, and not what people say or think about that thing.