Start by identifying the exact claim
Before checking a post, put its central claim into a sentence you could test. “This policy is a disaster” is an opinion; “this policy raised household costs” is a claim about an outcome. A post may contain both. Separate what a public figure said or proposed from what the post says happened as a result.
Notice the scope of the claim. Does it concern one city, an entire country or a particular group? Is it about a proposal, an adopted rule or a rule already in effect? Check the date, too. A true description of an earlier debate can mislead when presented as a new development. If you cannot tell what the post is claiming, pause rather than filling in the gaps yourself.
Trace the claim to its original source
Ask where the information came from, not just who shared it. A screenshot of a headline, a cropped video or a quote card may omit the publication, speaker, date or surrounding text. Search for the full article, speech, interview, public document or dataset when possible. If the post links to another summary, follow the chain until you reach the material on which the claim rests.
Finding the original source does not automatically settle the matter. A speech can establish what a politician said, but not whether the statement was accurate. A government document can establish what a rule says, but its effects may require separate evidence. Also check whether the source is describing a decision, predicting an outcome or advocating for one. Those are different kinds of information.
Check context, numbers and comparisons
For a quotation or clip, look at what came immediately before and after it. Was the speaker answering a hypothetical question, quoting someone else or describing an opponent’s view? Context should clarify meaning, not serve as an excuse to ignore words that are plainly there. Compare the post’s description with the fuller record before deciding whether its framing is fair.
For a numerical claim, ask what is being counted, over what period and compared with what starting point. A total and a percentage can both be accurate while conveying different impressions. Consider whether the number describes a budget proposal or actual spending, a survey of a particular group or the wider population. If a chart appears, read its labels and units; an image alone may not tell you how its figures were produced.
Look for independent support and limits
See whether other sources have examined the same specific claim. Independent reporting or analysis can help you spot a missing qualification or a disagreement about evidence. Several posts repeating the same unsourced statement, however, do not amount to several confirmations. Pay attention to whether sources cite the same underlying document or offer distinct evidence.
Ask what would have to be true for the claim to hold. A correlation between two trends does not, by itself, show that one caused the other. A personal account can illuminate an experience without establishing how common it is. Even a careful study may apply only to the place, population or period it examined. When the available evidence supports a narrower conclusion than the post suggests, keep the narrower conclusion.
Make a deliberate sharing decision
Use a simple final check: Can you name the claim, locate its source, explain the relevant context and say what the evidence does and does not show? If not, consider waiting. You do not have to settle every political disagreement before sharing anything, but uncertainty is worth acknowledging. “I have not verified this” is more accurate than presenting an unconfirmed post as fact.
If you do share, link to the most informative source you found and describe it in your own words. Avoid forwarding a misleading headline merely to criticize it; readers may see the headline without your explanation. When you discover that something you shared was wrong, correct it where the original audience is likely to see the correction. The aim is not to win every exchange. It is to help others understand what is known, what remains uncertain and why.
