Evaluate a Source
What you will be able to do: Lateral reading: judging an unfamiliar publisher using independent sources rather than the publisher's own account
Before you start
The instinct when meeting an unfamiliar website is to study it: read the About page, look at the design, check the masthead. Every one of those signals is controlled by the publisher.
This exercise walks through the alternative. The two items are connected: the second follows from what you find in the first.
Every scenario on this page is fictional and was written for this exercise. None of them describes a real organization, person, or event.
Practice
Choose a response for each item, then read why it is stronger or weaker. There is no score, no account, and nothing is sent anywhere. Your answers stay in this browser tab and disappear when you close it.
1. An unfamiliar site
You find an article on a site called the Institute for Household Energy Research. The site has a professional design, an About page describing a mission to inform consumers, a list of five staff members, and articles citing government data.
Weaker reading
This is vertical reading. Everything on the About page was written by the organization about itself, so it tells you what they want you to believe rather than what is independently known. It is not useless, but it should not be first.
Strongest reading
This is lateral reading, and it is the strongest opening move. Within a minute you usually learn whether the organization has an independent record, who established it, and whether other sources characterize it as research, advocacy, or industry communication.
Partly right
Worth doing, but later. Citations are easy to include and hard to check quickly, and their presence is not evidence that they support what the article claims. Trace a specific citation once you know what kind of organization you are dealing with.
Show the full answer key for this item
What remains uncertain: A thin independent record is informative but not disqualifying. New organizations exist. It means you should not treat the site as established, not that it is deceptive.
- Read the About page carefully to understand the mission. Weaker reading
- This is vertical reading. Everything on the About page was written by the organization about itself, so it tells you what they want you to believe rather than what is independently known. It is not useless, but it should not be first.
- Open a new tab and search the organization name alongside terms like "funding" or "founded". Strongest reading
- This is lateral reading, and it is the strongest opening move. Within a minute you usually learn whether the organization has an independent record, who established it, and whether other sources characterize it as research, advocacy, or industry communication.
- Check whether the article cites sources. Partly right
- Worth doing, but later. Citations are easy to include and hard to check quickly, and their presence is not evidence that they support what the article claims. Trace a specific citation once you know what kind of organization you are dealing with.
2. What the search returns
Your search returns a business registry entry showing the organization was incorporated fourteen months ago, and two industry newsletters describing it as an initiative supported by a group of appliance manufacturers.
Weaker reading
This over-corrects. Funding creates a systematic interest, which affects which questions get asked and how findings are framed. It does not make the underlying government data wrong. Discarding on funding alone means giving up information you could verify.
Strongest reading
This is the strongest response. It separates two things that get conflated: whether the facts are accurate, and whether the selection of facts is representative. Industry-supported material is often factually accurate and systematically selective, and only the second problem is addressed by knowing the funder.
Partly right
This is partial. Noting the funding without changing anything about how you read is close to not noting it. The finding should raise your standard for the claims that serve the funder's interest specifically.
Show the full answer key for this item
What remains uncertain: Two industry newsletters are a thin evidentiary base for a funding claim. Ideally you would find a disclosure, a filing, or the organization's own statement of support.
- You should discard the article, since it is industry funded. Weaker reading
- This over-corrects. Funding creates a systematic interest, which affects which questions get asked and how findings are framed. It does not make the underlying government data wrong. Discarding on funding alone means giving up information you could verify.
- You should treat the framing and selection as interested, and verify each specific factual claim against the primary source it cites. Strongest reading
- This is the strongest response. It separates two things that get conflated: whether the facts are accurate, and whether the selection of facts is representative. Industry-supported material is often factually accurate and systematically selective, and only the second problem is addressed by knowing the funder.
- You should note the funding and otherwise read it as before. Partly right
- This is partial. Noting the funding without changing anything about how you read is close to not noting it. The finding should raise your standard for the claims that serve the funder's interest specifically.
What to take away
- Leave the page first.
- Thirty seconds of searching outside the site usually tells you more than five minutes on it.
- Funding changes framing before it changes facts.
- An interested publisher is more likely to select facts favourably than to state them falsely. Knowing the interest tells you what to check, not what to reject.
- Evaluate the claim as well as the source.
- Source-level judgments are fast and blunt. Tracing one specific citation is slower and much more decisive.
Nothing you select on this page is transmitted anywhere. There is no account, no score, and no record. See the privacy page for details.
Topics covered: Media LiteracyDigital Literacy
Related material
Toolkit resource
Source Evaluation Worksheet: Lateral Reading in Five Fields
A structured worksheet for evaluating an unfamiliar publisher in about five minutes, with space to record what you found and what you still do not know.
Lesson
How to Evaluate an Online Source
Lateral reading in practice: how to judge an unfamiliar website or account in about two minutes by leaving the page rather than studying it.
Lesson
How Images Lose Their Original Context
Recontextualized photographs mislead more often than manipulated ones. Here is how it happens and how to trace an image back to its origin.
How this page is produced
Published by ARAC International under theTHINK editorial standards. If you find an error, please tell us through the corrections page.