Is it authentic?

Is the context accurate?

Is there evidence that proves the claim?

Is it based on solid reasoning?

Has it been posted or confirmed by a credible source?

The only evidence tying Boebert to the killing of the dog is an emotional post from the dog’s owner. This kind of anecdotal evidence, especially from a party involved in the incident, is notoriously unreliable. 

“Did Lauren Boebert Shoot and Kill Her Neighbor’s Dog?”

“No, Lauren Boebert didn’t shoot her neighbor’s dogs. Here’s what really happened.” 

“Lauren Boebert’s Alleged Dog Shooting Story, Explained” 

No, Rep. Lauren Boebert didn’t shoot her neighbor’s dog.

A dog that had attacked and killed other animals in the area, including goats belonging to Boebert, 

 on Boebert’s property by a different neighbor on Aug. 17, according to official police reports.

 condemning Boebert for the killing, then later deleted it.

Screenshots of the deleted post continue to circulate online as “evidence” that Boebert was responsible for the shooting.

Strong feelings, rather than facts, regarding Boebert likely led more people to give in to their personal biases and believe the post. Motivated reasoning and confirmation bias are two of the most common mistakes in reasoning people make online.

A viral rumor that Colorado Republican Rep. Lauren Boebert shot and killed her neighbor’s dog is generating widespread condemnation online. But it’s a false accusation based on a since-deleted Facebook post. Let’s look at the facts. 

No, Rep. Lauren Boebert didn’t shoot her neighbor’s dog

This rumor was based solely on an angry Facebook post written by the dog’s owner. Even after she deleted the post, screenshots of it continued to circulate online. 

An unverified claim can easily take on a life of its own, especially when it concerns a polarizing public figure. When a neighbor accused Boebert of killing her dog, it proved to be an irresistible story to her critics — likely because it affirmed their personal biases about Boebert, whose 

 in the past. By the time it was revealed that Boebert had nothing to do with this dog’s death, the viral falsehood had already outpaced the truth.

While the dog’s owner may seem to be in a position to know the information she’s providing, she was also involved in the event. This highlights a key difference between user-generated content and standards-based news reporting: sourcing guidelines and processes of verification. Credible news reporting requires multiple, high-quality sources to confirm key details of events — no matter how clear-cut the story may seem. This takes time, which is why viral falsehoods like the neighbor’s accusation often spread faster than the truth. The importance of verifying even those things you think you know is captured in an 

 that is still cited in newsrooms to this day: “If your mother says she loves you, check it out.”

Blue

This is not an authentic clip of a crowd booing Jill Biden at an NFL football game. The authentic clip shows the crowd singing the Eagles fight song. 

This quiz tests your ability to differentiate between sources of credible news and those that are merely posing as legitimate sources.


News Lit Quiz: Is it legit? Vetting news sources for credibility

We can all make better choices about the information we consume, share and act on. But can you tell the difference between social media posts that are false or misleading and those that are credible?

Test your news literacy skills with this quiz and help stop the flood of misinformation.

News Lit Quiz: Should you share it?

This video was originally shared by the official NFL Twitter account. The authentic footage shows that a large crowd was not booing and chanting. 

Test opengraph title

Eight Tips to Google Like a Pro

This tutorial video teaches you the basics of “lateral reading” (doing effective internet searches to evaluate a source or piece of information).

Lateral Reading

Tutorial: Lateral reading

“Clip of Jill Biden singing ahead of NFL game digitally altered to add anti-Biden chant”

“Separating Fact v. Fiction: Was Jill Biden Booed at Eagles Game?”

Misleading audio falsely shows NFL crowd booing Jill Biden 

Philadelphia Eagles fans did not chant anti-Biden expletives and boo in loud unison when Jill Biden appeared on the field before the start of an Oct. 16 game.

 for the video shows Jill Biden singing the Eagles fight song along with the crowd.

 that a video clip with the authentic audio was posted to its official social media accounts.

Cellphone videos that appeared to have been shot by some fans in the crowd 

 a few isolated pockets of boos aimed at Jill Biden.

A viral video makes it seem like first lady Jill Biden was greeted with loud boos at a Philadelphia Eagles game. However, the audio, which also featured an anti-Biden chant, was artificially added to the clip. Let’s look at the facts. 

This video was widely shared by partisan social media accounts that included comments critical of the Bidens.

Develop a nuanced understanding of news media bias by learning about five types of bias and five ways it can manifest itself, as well as methods for minimizing it.

Understanding Bias

Manipulated media is often created with the intent of skewing people’s view of reality. Adding audio of a booing crowd to a video clip of Jill Biden created the illusion that she — and, by extension, President Joe Biden — are particularly disliked.

Some social media users even used the altered video to contend that the negative reaction from such a large crowd to the first lady shows that Joe Biden could not have legitimately won the 2020 presidential election, a baseless claim that continues to be pushed by partisans.

Keep in mind that doctored media online not only contains false content, but also is often designed to manipulate users.

Green

No, this cover story was never published by The Atlantic. The website has since added a disclaimer to its search results that says, “Fabricated screenshots purporting to show Atlantic articles have been circulating online. Legitimate articles appear in the results below.”

The evidence shows this story never appeared in The Atlantic. 

“The Atlantic didn’t publish article calling Muslim parents ‘far right’” 

“The Atlantic did not publish headline on ‘evolution of white supremacy’ after protest at Dearborn, Michigan school board meeting”

Fake headline used to stir up outrage at liberals

 published an article with this headline.

This is a doctored screenshot and an example of 

A viral image appears to show a screenshot of a headline of a cover story in The Atlantic asserting that Muslim parents “who oppose teaching pornography to children” represent an “evolution of white supremacy.” But that image is a counterfeit. Let’s look at the facts. 

This fake article was shared by Cruz. But fact-checkers from Reuters and the Associated Press both confirmed the article was fake and Cruz later deleted his tweet.  

Fabricated news headlines often go viral because they strike a strong chord with people’s existing biases and views of the world. On Oct. 14, Texas Republican Sen. Ted Cruz shared this piece of impostor content designed to look like an article in The Atlantic and commented, “The Left is beyond parody.” After Cruz learned the screenshot was a fake, he 

deleted his tweet but doubled down on his motivation for sharing it

, writing in apparent reference to liberals and the news media: “You guys are so insane, it could easily have been real.”

The argument that a piece of misinformation “might as well be true” is often employed as a rationale after people realize that something they shared was false. The authenticity and accuracy of an individual piece of content doesn’t matter (they often claim) because it speaks to a larger truth they embrace. Users who don’t stop to examine their biases before sharing provocative content sometimes become angry at what is actually a caricature of their perceived opponents.