As the election on November 8 grow ever closer, we can expect additional controversy regarding each of the candidates. This article is intended as a handy, starter checklist to aid you in evaluating the trustworthiness of articles you may see in the upcoming week. Of course, you can also use these tips when you are evaluating news stories that aren't related to the election.

1. Take note of adjectives and descriptive language.

It is a hallmark of sensationalism to use adjectives and descriptive language. Descriptive language’s role is to appeal to our senses and evoke emotional reactions. For example, this article describes Donald Trump’s facial expressions after the final presidential debate and speculates on his emotional state. I am not a Trump supporter, but I think this kind of reporting discredits the reporter more than it discredits the candidate. “Seething,” “upset,” and “rage” are emotional states, and this sort of information appeals to our emotions rather than facts. Hearing that Trump looked angry after the debate may make those who already dislike him feel justified in disliking him, but it doesn’t give us facts about his policies or actions. In addition, speculation about someone’s emotions does not convey information beyond what we could hypothesize on our own from watching the video of his facial expression after the debate.

2. Look for articles that include input from opposing sides of a conflict, and realize that there is still probably more to the story.

Faculty in the union APSCUF at the fourteen universities in the Pennsylvania state system (PASSHE) recently went on strike. I attend one of the fourteen universities and regularly interact with faculty, so it was a unique opportunity for me to have both in-person experience and be able to read how the event was portrayed in the news. My findings were fascinating. The local newspaper actually had a balanced article including quotes from both the APSCUF president and the PASSHE president. In contrast, The New York Times released an article that consisted mainly of an interview with the APSCUF union president. Obviously, this meant the article included mostly information painting the union in a positive light and PASSHE’s contract as untenable. Neither article captured the many nuances in the conflicts between APSCUF and PASSHE. I had the privilege of understanding the scenario by being directly involved in the event as a student, but without the direct communications from my university and conversations with trusted professors, I still wouldn’t be sure about the root of the conflict.

3. Be wary of sources that use questions to present controversial information.

Most of us have seen tabloids in the grocery store. Have you ever wondered how they manage to avoid being sued for making claims about celebrities? Questions are one way untrustworthy news sources are able to suggest inaccurate ideas about events without actually saying they happened. Take for example a question from an article in the Daily Mail. "This election race has become infamous for surprises but nothing surely quite to rival today's FBI bombshell about Hillary Clinton's email server?"
The author, Piers Morgan, manages to use descriptive language such as “infamous” and “bombshell” to paint a picture about the latest findings from Hillary Clinton’s emails without actually giving us proof of what the emails contained. Questions allow the author to suggest ideas to readers without having to provide facts, thus protecting him or herself from accusations of libel.

4. Extreme language is often a sign you should remain skeptical.

Always, never, and use of superlatives are good signposts to tell you to carefully examine claims contained in the information. If you are reading this article, I assume you have been alive at least 18 years. In that time, you have probably learned that there are exceptions to nearly every rule. Be wary of extreme claims. I do not intend for this article to dissuade you from voting for a particular candidate, but I am including the following quote from Donald Trump during the first presidential debate because I think it is a compelling example of superlatives and always/never claims.

"TRUMP: Thank you, Lester.Our jobs are fleeing the country.They're going to Mexico. They're going to many other countries.You look at what China is doing to our country in terms of making our product. They're devaluing their currency, and there's nobody in our government to fight them. And we have a very good fight. And we have a winning fight. Because they're using our country as a piggy bank to rebuild China, and many other countries are doing the same thing.

So we're losing our good jobs, so many of them. When you look at what's happening in Mexico, a friend of minewho builds plants said it's the eighth wonder of the world. They're building some of the biggest plants anywhere in the world, some of the most sophisticated, some of the best plants. With the United States, as he said, not so much. [EMPHASIS ADDED]"

Saying there is “nobody” in the United States government who could create effective trade deals and legislation is a sign that we need to look deeper at this quotation. The superlatives in the second half of the quotation are another clue that we need to remain skeptical. The suggestion that Mexico has the "biggest" and "best" plants in the world might evoke an emotional reaction such as fear of competition in listeners, but it does not accurately describe Mexico’s economy and factories. In fact, the speaker does not even direct us to a place where we could learn more about these “biggest” and “best” plants.

5. Acknowledge your own biases.

We are only human, and humans are more likely to trust information that confirms what they already believe. This tendency to interpret information in a way that supports our preexisting notions is called confirmation bias. This is why I seldom repost infographics. I find that their use of imagery, “facts” without sources listed, and the fact that they are short and to the point make them prone to be misleading. When an infographic contains information that matches our own worldview, it is tempting to hit share without questioning the potentially false information we are perpetuating. Recently, I saw an infographic featuring a picture of President Obama overlaid with a strong quote in favor of Roe vs. Wade. Because I am pro-choice, my first reaction was to be impressed and surprised President Obama took such a strong stance. However, my skepticism kicked in and it turned out my "too good to be true" instinct was correct.

----

I hope you learned a few useful tools to help you evaluate information pertaining to the election and other controversial news stories. Remember: be aware of language that is intended to evoke your emotions. Know that you are going to be more vulnerable to accepting false or misleading information if it supports your worldview. Seek out information from a variety of news sources. Finally, know that it will get easier to detect biased or misleading information the more you practice looking for it. I wish you a wonderful week of analyzing information!