Skip to content

Check a story and avoid disinformation

The essentials

  • Angry or in a hurry? Slow down before sharing (SIFT method).
  • First look for an existing check: fact-checking services, Droit à l'Info's resource centre.
  • Check the source, look for other sources, trace the origin.
  • Images: five questions (original version? who? where? when? why?), then reverse image search.1
  • A good debunk is short, sourced and dated; checking must never expose anyone.

During a mobilisation, false information spreads fast: old photos resurfacing, invented tolls, rumours of dissolution or bans. It comes from all sides, including institutions. Sharing false information weakens the movement and can put people at risk. This guide helps you not to relay it, to check it, and to write a debunk others can share.

Where to start?

Start by looking for an existing check

Before starting from scratch, see whether professionals have already dealt with it.

A serious fact-checking service publishes its sources: the international IFCN network stands for "nonpartisan and transparent" fact-checking, and warns that unsourced or biased fact-checking can increase distrust.3 Hold yourself to the same rule.

The 4-step method (SIFT)

Method proposed by researcher Mike Caulfield.4

  1. Stop: do you feel anger or urgency? Slow down before sharing.
  2. Investigate the source: who is publishing? An identified outlet, an account created last week, a screenshot with no link?
  3. Find other sources: is the information picked up by reliable outlets or fact-checkers?
  4. Trace the origin: go back to the original post, with its date and place.

Check a text, a quote or a figure

  • A quote with no link, a "document" as a screenshot, "according to sources" is not enough: look for the text, the press release, the statement.
  • Date the information: an old story resurfacing as new is a classic.
  • Cross-check: is it picked up by several independent sources, or do they all quote the same publication?
  • Note what you don't know: "unverified" is an honest answer.
  • A figure (casualties, turnout, injured): attribute it to whoever gives it (prefecture, union, organisers, hospital, media). A figure with no author is worth nothing. Compare orders of magnitude, not decimals. No casualty or arrest figures without an identified source.

Check an image or a video

Journalists ask five questions about a photo or video: are you looking at the original version? Do you know who took it, where, when, and why?1 Do the same.

  • Reverse image search to find the origin: TinEye, Yandex Image Search, Google Image Search or Google Lens, and InVID for videos.15
  • Look for clues to place and date: shop signs, number plates, weather, sign languages, season, clothing.
  • Look for a longer version or another angle. A real image taken out of context also misleads. The Verification Handbook describes a viral video whose longer version, which appeared several days later, showed a much more complex situation.1
  • Ask who shared it first, and why. A tightly cropped video, with no sound or no date, deserves extra doubt.
  • An image that looks "too perfect" may be AI-generated: inconsistent hands, text, reflections.
  • Don't repost a harmful image to debunk it: putting it back in circulation, even with a "FAKE" stamp, can amplify it, and the Verification Handbook authors urge journalists to think before drawing attention to harmful content.1 Use a description, or a screenshot with "fake" clearly visible and no faces.

Checking must not expose

Never publicly identify a person seen in an image (protester, police officer, bystander) to "check" who they are. You may point at the wrong person and expose them to harassment or prosecution.6 Blur faces on your screenshots.

Write a useful debunk

A debunk is meant to stop a rumour, not spread it. You don't need a long text.

  • Start with what is true, not the rumour: state what is established.
  • Name the claim once, clearly, so people recognise it.
  • Cite the source of your check, with a link and the date.
  • Be precise about what you don't know: "unconfirmed at this time" rather than a categorical denial.
  • Share the link to the check rather than copying the rumour.
  • Correct yourself if you relayed an error: a visible correction, in the same place as the error, and delete the error.
  • No personal attacks: you take apart a claim, not a person.

Debunk template

To adapt and copy-paste:

✅ CHECKED — [date]
What is circulating: "[claim, in one sentence]".
What is established: [the fact, in one or two sentences].
What we don't know: [the point still unconfirmed, or "nothing so far"].
Source: [link to the check or the original document]
Please share this link rather than the rumour.

In a group or channel

  • One person in charge of rumours: they check, they answer, others pass things on to them. In an organised group, it is a good role for a trusted person.
  • A pinned message "casualty figures and rumours: sources only" stops everyone from relaying whatever they saw go by.
  • For Signal groups, see Signal groups: organising while limiting leaks.

Before sharing

  • No tolls (injured, dead, arrests) without an identified source.
  • No names or faces of protesters: you could expose them to prosecution or harassment.6
  • If you got it wrong: correct publicly and delete.
  • Prefer sharing a link to a check rather than the rumour, even to deny it.

Critical distance: media bias, official accounts and recourse

Beyond viral fake news, media framing of a social movement or initial accounts of policing operations can be biased or incomplete:

  • Check media ownership and framing: the chart “French media: who owns what?” (Le Monde diplomatique & Acrimed) maps the shareholders of major French press and broadcast groups. Acrimed and Arrêt sur images regularly analyze how strikes and protests are covered.
  • Cross-check official accounts of policing: an initial public statement is not established proof (see our examples of debunked official statements). Cross-reference with visual counter-investigations by INDEX, tracking by Allô Place Beauvau and Basta!, or investigative outlets (Mediapart, Disclose, StreetPress).
  • Report a breach of journalism ethics: when a report or broadcast spreads inaccurate, truncated or one-sided claims, anyone can file a free complaint with the CDJM (Journalism Ethics and Mediation Council, for print, online and broadcast media) or Arcom (for television and radio channels).

Fact-checking services and reliable outlets in the directory

In one of these situations? manipulated or misinformed · facing dubious information · an influencer or content creator · young or a student · afraid, but I want to act

Sources

Each note points to the source of the information. Laws change: check the date of the source and, if in doubt, ask a lawyer.

  1. Verification Handbook 3 (EJC) — Verifying and questioning images · AI-sourced on · awaiting human check ↩↩↩↩↩

  2. Droit à l'Info — Resource centre (in French) · AI-sourced on · awaiting human check ↩

  3. IFCN — Code of Principles (International Fact-Checking Network) · AI-sourced on · awaiting human check ↩

  4. Mike Caulfield — SIFT (The Four Moves) · AI-sourced on · awaiting human check ↩

  5. AFP Factuel · AI-sourced on · awaiting human check ↩

  6. EFF Surveillance Self-Defense — Attending a protest · AI-sourced on · awaiting human check ↩↩

SOS