Is this a primary or secondary source?source classification question
Use when: determining how close a piece of information is to its original origin — whether it is first-hand evidence or a report of a report
Primary sources are original — documents, eyewitness accounts, raw data, official statements. Secondary sources report on primary sources. The further a claim travels from its origin, the more opportunities there are for distortion, simplification, or error.
"Before citing this, is this a primary or secondary source? The article references 'a study' but never links to it — I want to read the actual data, not someone's summary of it."
What's the editorial line of this outlet?source evaluation question
Use when: situating a piece of journalism within the broader ideological and political position of the outlet that published it
Every outlet has an editorial line — a consistent set of values, priorities, and political sympathies that shape what it covers and how. Knowing the editorial line does not mean dismissing the outlet, but it does mean reading it with appropriate awareness.
"What's the editorial line of this outlet? If it has consistently advocated for this policy for years, that doesn't make its reporting wrong — but it does mean I should seek a second opinion."
I don't trust a source that...personal criteria statement
Use when: articulating a specific, principled reason for distrusting a particular type of source or outlet
A powerful phrase for expressing media literacy principles — it invites you to be specific rather than vague about your criteria for trust. The strength of this phrase is that it demands a completion: "I don't trust a source that... [never corrects errors / doesn't name its sources / is funded by the government it covers]."
"I don't trust a source that has never issued a correction — not because all outlets make mistakes, but because the willingness to correct errors is one of the clearest signs of editorial integrity."
This outlet has a track record of...evidence-based evaluation
Use when: basing your assessment of an outlet's reliability on its past performance rather than its claims about itself
Trust in journalism should be earned through demonstrated behavior, not claimed through branding. An outlet's track record — of accuracy, corrections, independence, legal judgments against it — is the most reliable guide to its credibility.
"This outlet has a track record of publishing stories that have later been retracted or significantly corrected — that history matters when we are deciding how much weight to give its current reporting."
The author's credentials are...credibility assessment
Use when: evaluating whether the person making a claim has the knowledge, experience, or independence to be considered a reliable source on this specific topic
Credentials matter — but they are not a guarantee of accuracy, and expertise in one domain does not transfer automatically to another. A doctor commenting on economics, or an economist commenting on medicine, is not automatically credible.
"The author's credentials are worth checking — they are described as a 'security expert', but their biography shows they spent twenty years working for the defense contractor whose products they are recommending."
I look for corroboration before I share this.responsible sharing habit
Use when: describing the practice of verifying a claim with at least one independent source before passing it on
Corroboration — having a claim confirmed by a separate, independent source — is the foundation of journalistic verification. Applying it to your own sharing habits is one of the most effective ways to slow the spread of misinformation.
"I look for corroboration before I share this — one source is not enough, especially for a claim this significant. Has anyone else reported it independently?"
This is from a think tank — who funds them?funding transparency question
Use when: evaluating a report or analysis produced by a think tank, research institute, or advocacy organization whose funding may shape its conclusions
Think tanks occupy an ambiguous space between academia, journalism, and lobbying. Some are genuinely independent; others are funded by corporations or governments with direct interests in the policies they research. Transparency about funding is the key indicator of integrity.
"This is from a think tank — who funds them? If their major donors include the industry they are recommending we deregulate, that is not independent research; it is advocacy dressed as analysis."
A paywall doesn't mean reliable.myth-busting observation
Use when: challenging the assumption that paid-for journalism is automatically more trustworthy than free journalism
Paywalls signal a business model, not a quality standard. Some of the most reliable journalism is free; some of the most unreliable is behind a subscription. Quality indicators are editorial independence, named sources, corrections policies, and demonstrated accuracy — not price.
"A paywall doesn't mean reliable — and free doesn't mean unreliable. Some of the most rigorous investigative journalism in the world is published by nonprofits and freely available to everyone."