Back in the days when journalism was rewarded and people read newspapers for unbiased papers they had this thing called editorials. Editorials are opinions. Most publications do not seem to tell readers anymore when it’s actual news or an opinion. The problem got worse after Fox News debuted because it was basically an opinion or editorial network. They would tell what they considered the “news” but in their biased way of doing so. The problem got worse in the last election when the internet has been flooded with many propaganda, misleading, and extremist sites that were not based on references or fact. Sites and blogs that had no respect for real journalism.

An assistant professor of communication and media put together a resource that started as a tool for teaching her students about journalism, social media, and media literacy. This is a great source for putting together which sites to check on before clicking or reading an article that you may see almost hourly in your newsfeed. Some of the highly popular sites listed on here are RT.com, Breitbart, and USUncut. Breitbart was one of the highest ranked sites in the trending section of Facebook during the election which posted what were in disguise as journalism but were really conspiracy or misleading claims. Here is a short summary of some of the most popular Facebook linked sites that are what we call Fake News:
1. abcnewsgo.co Absolutely fake. The .co should alert people it is not real. We normally only trust .com sites as our #1 Rule for U.S. News.
2. anonhq.com unreliable – Anonymous posted many unreliable sourced stories during the election.
3. wikileaks.org – rumors.
4. realtimepolitics.com – bias, unreliable.
5. redflagnews.com – bias, conspiracy.
6. redstate.com – political, clickbait.
7. redstatewatcher.com – bias, clickbait.
8. usuncut.com – clickbait, bias. One of the top Bernie bro and Green Party cited sites but not real journalism. They were also sold.
9. bipartisanreport.com – clickbait, bias
10. rt.com – state-ran. Russia runs this propaganda channel.
11. infowars.com – conspiracy site.

They also listed a few sites that were factual such as Advocate.com. Which was listed as political but credible. One site that the document failed to mention was thereligionofpeace.com which should be listed as a hate site. You can see the full list below.

Russia Plays A Big Role In Spreading Fake “News”
Facebook reports that it found about $100,000 in ad spending from a likely Russian influence operation designed to amplify divisive political messages. That covers thousands of ads to over 470 inauthentic accounts and pages that violated company policy. The ads and accounts appeared to focus on amplifying divisive social and political messages across the ideological spectrum — touching on topics from LGBT matters to race issues to immigration to gun rights. Facebook representatives told congressional investigators that it found it had sold ads to a shadowy Russian company looking to target voters — a “troll farm” with a history of pro-Kremlin propaganda, The Washington Post reports. Some ads directly named Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton.

Russian Propaganda and paid internet trolls will only get worse to try and change elections across Germany, France, the United States and other countries they wish to influence. If you think the fake news problem is bad in the U.S. well it is far worse in Russia. They helped rig the U.S. election and will also work to rig other countries elections. If you google “Hillary Clinton” for results only from Russian webpages and then translate the pages all of them basically have headlines that read “Hillary plans to kill all Russian children, Obama supports her decision” and “Hillary plans to nuke Russia until extinct” “Obama threatens to murder all Russian families” and these same websites say things like “Donald trump Provides medication for 5 million children worldwide”. It almost seems they took facts about Trump and put Hillary and Obama’s names on them.

Because of internet censorship in Russia, monitoring, and extreme repercussions for finding ways around their federal blacklist, it would be nearly impossible for the average citizen of Russia to know that what they report about Hillary is actually true for President Trump and vice versa. It’s interesting that the United States media organizations have not figured this out yet.

Bernie Sanders, Pro-Trump, & Jill Stein Facebook Groups Are A Prime Fake News Machine
The Huff Post did a great piece on how the “Bernie Sanders’ Campaign Faced A Fake News Tsunami” and how it all came from the Russian trolls set out to distract and divide the invigorated left. 40 percent of the domain registrations for the fake news sites that were popping up on pro-Sanders pages were pinged back to Eastern Europe. Bernie supporters across the country had been noticing dubious websites and posters linked back to Eastern Europe on groups including Latinos for Bernie Sanders, Oregon for Bernie Sanders 2016 and Pennsylvania Progressives for Bernie Sanders.

These groups have hundreds of thousands of members where a fake news story would be posted with a headline of “This is a story you won’t see on Fox/CNN or the other Mainstream media!” with a link to a post claiming false information such as that Clinton had “made a small fortune by arming ISIS.” The Bernie Sanders Lovers page saw heavy engagement, and nearly every article it shared was from Bients.com and more currently you see they are sharing stories from ThePredicted.com. Both sites were registered by a person name Hysen Alimi in Albania. When you click on these sites Chrome will warn you your connection is “not secure.”

Tips for analyzing news sources:

• Avoid websites that end in “lo” ex: Newslo. These sites take pieces of accurate information and then packaging that information with other false or misleading “facts” (sometimes for the purposes of satire or comedy).
• Watch out for websites that end in “.com.co” as they are often fake versions of real news sources  
• Watch out if known/reputable news sites are not also reporting on the story. Sometimes lack of coverage is the result of corporate media bias and other factors, but there should typically be more than one source reporting on a topic or event.
• Odd domain names generally equal odd and rarely truthful news.
• Lack of author attribution may, but not always, signify that the news story is suspect and requires verification.
• Some news organizations are also letting bloggers post under the banner of particular news brands; however, many of these posts do not go through the same editing process (ex: BuzzFeed Community Posts, Kinja blogs, Forbes blogs).
• Check the “About Us” tab on websites or look up the website on Snopes or Wikipedia for more information about the source.
• Bad web design and use of ALL CAPS can also be a sign that the source you’re looking at should be verified and/or read in conjunction with other sources.
• If the story makes you REALLY ANGRY it’s probably a good idea to keep reading about the topic via other sources to make sure the story you read wasn’t purposefully trying to make you angry (with potentially misleading or false information) in order to generate shares and ad revenue. 
• If the website you’re reading encourages you to DOX individuals, it’s unlikely to be a legitimate source of news.
• It’s always best to read multiple sources of information to get a variety of viewpoints and media frames. Sources such as The Daily Kos, The Huffington Post, and Fox News vacillate between providing important, legitimate, problematic, and/or hyperbolic news coverage, requiring readers and viewers to verify and contextualize information with other sources.
• For more tips on analyzing the credibility and reliability of sources, please check out School Library Journal (they also provide an extensive list of media literacy resources) and the Digital Resource Center.

OpenSources Steps for Analyzing Websites:

Step 1:  Title/Domain Analysis. If words like “.wordpress” or “blogger” are in the domain that usually signifies it’s a personal blog rather than a news source. If slight variations of well known websites appear, such as “.com.co,” this is usually a sign that the website is fake version of a source. However, remember that foreign reputable news organizations may have these country-specific domains.

Step 2: About Us Analysis. I usually google every title/domain name/anyone listed in the “About Us” section to see if anyone has previously reported on the website (snopes, hoax-slayer, politifact, factcheck.org, etc.) or whether it has a wikipedia page or something similar detailing its background. This is useful for identifying and correctly interpreting lesser known and/or new websites that may be on the up-and-up, such as satirical sources or websites that are explicit about their political orientation.

Then I look for information about the credentials and backgrounds of affiliated writers (is it a content mill or do they pay their writers?), editors, publishers, and domain owners (who.is etc.). It’s also useful to see if the website has a “Legal” or “Disclaimer” section. Many satirical websites disclose this information in those sections.

A total lack of About Us, Contact US, or any other type of identifying information may mean that the website is not a legitimate source of information.

Step 3: Source Analysis. Does the website mention/link to a study or source? Look up the source/study. Do you think it’s being accurately reflected and reported? Are officials being cited? Can you confirm their quotes elsewhere? Some media literacy and critical scholars call this triangulation: Verify details, facts, quotes, etc. with multiple sources.

Step 4: Writing Style Analysis. Does the website follow AP Style Guide or another style guide? Typically, lack of style guide may indicate an overall lack of editing or fact-checking process. Does it frequently use ALL CAPS in headlines and/or body text? Does the headline or body of the text use words like WOW!, SLAUGHTER!, DESTROY!? This stylistic practice and these types of hyperbolic word choices are often used to create emotional responses with readers that is avoided in more traditional styles of journalism.

Step 5:  Aesthetic Analysis. Like the style-guide, many fake and questionable news sites utilize very bad design. Usually this means screens are cluttered with text and heavy-handed photoshopping or born digital images.

Step 6: Social Media Analysis.  Look up the website on Facebook. Do the headlines and posts rely on sensational or provocative language– aka clickbait– in order to attract attention and encourage likes, clickthroughs, and shares? Do the headlines and social media descriptions match or accurately reflect the content of the linked article? (this step isn’t particularly good at helping us find fake news, but it can help us identify other misleading news sources)

By considering all of these areas of information we can determine which category or categories a website may occupy, although all categorizations are by necessity open to discussion and revision.

Website Labels for OpenSources.co:

Fake News (tag fake): Sources that entirely fabricate information, disseminate deceptive content, or grossly distort actual news reports.  

Satire (tag satire): Sources that use humor, irony, exaggeration, ridicule, and false information to comment on current events.  

Extreme Bias (tag bias): Sources that come from a particular point of view and may rely on propaganda, decontextualized information, and opinions distorted as facts.

Conspiracy Theory (tag conspiracy): Sources that are well-known promoters of kooky conspiracy theories.

Rumor Mill (tag rumor): Sources that traffic in rumors, gossip, innuendo, and unverified claims.

State News (tag state): Sources in repressive states operating under government sanction.

Junk Science (tag junksci): Sources that promote pseudoscience, metaphysics, naturalistic fallacies, and other scientifically dubious claims.

Hate News (tag hate): Sources that actively promote racism, misogyny, homophobia, and other forms of discrimination.

Clickbait (tag clickbait): Sources that provide generally credible content, but use exaggerated, misleading, or questionable headlines, social media descriptions, and/or images.  

Proceed With Caution (tag unreliable): Sources that may be reliable but whose contents require further verification.

*Political (tag political): Sources that provide generally verifiable information in support of certain points of view or political orientations.  

*Credible (tag reliable): Sources that circulate news and information in a manner consistent with traditional and ethical practices in journalism (Remember: even credible sources sometimes rely on clickbait-style headlines or occasionally make mistakes. No news organization is perfect, which is why a healthy news diet consists of multiple sources of information).

Unknown (tag unidentified): Sources that have not yet been analyzed. Help us expand our resource by providing us information!

Note: Tags like political and credible are being used for two reasons: 1.) they were suggested by viewers of the document or OpenSources and circulate news 2.) the credibility of information and of organizations exists on a continuum, which this project aims to demonstrate. For now, mainstream news organizations are not included because they are well known to a vast majority of readers.

Working Website List for Opensources.co:

The below list of websites is a combination of my original list in this google document, numerous other lists on the internet, and suggestions from readers/internet users. All tagged websites have been analyzed by myself or one of the librarians I’m working with on OpenSources. All websites tagged as “unknown”  still need to be analyzed, and some of them may be removed entirely from the resource for various reasons (i.e. it doesn’t circulate “news” or the website no longer exists). Finally, please remember that all tags may be subject to revision based on feedback, discussion, continued analysis, or website changes etc.