Fact-Check Yourself: Tools for Navigating Truth in a Misinformation Age

In an age where misinformation spreads faster than truth, navigating the flood of headlines, memes, and viral claims can feel overwhelming. Whether you're trying to verify a politician’s statement, a trending rumor, or even a well-meaning social media post, fact-checking has become a crucial skill. My friend Janis recently reminded me just how important it is to have trusted tools at our fingertips—and inspired me to pull together this list of reputable fact-checking sites. Most are vetted by the International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN), and I’ve included a few secondary resources as well to help you dig deeper. These tools won’t just sharpen your discernment—they’ll help restore trust in how we share and consume information.

Singer/songwriter/musician Janis Ian posted this recently on Facebook:

Clergy Coaching Network

In a world that is swirling with information true and made-up, it is harder than ever to tell a truth from a lie.  Fact-checking tools can be an important addition in our search for reliable information. 

We think you’ll want to keep these sites handy. You may even want to save them in your notes. Visit them regularly. And rather than relying on one, you’ll probably want to use multiple fact checking sites. 

In the US we recommend: 

OUR PRIMARY SOURCES…all members of the IFCN*

• https://apnews.com/hub/ap-fact-check
• https://www.factcheck.org/
• https://www.usatoday.com (search for “fact check”) 
• https://thedispatch.com/category/fact-check/
• https://leadstories.com/
• https://www.poynter.org/news/fact-checking/
• https://www.politifact.com
• https://www.reuters.com/fact-check/
• https://www.pbs.org/newshour/tag/fact-check
• https://www.snopes.com/
• https://checkyourfact.com/

(All of the above are members of the International Fact-Checking Network. Becoming a signatory requires a demonstrated commitment to using unbiased sources, relying on primary material, identifying multiple lines of evidence and including links to all of the above so readers can replicate their work. Signatories of the IFCN Code of Principles are subjected to the established vetting process and evaluated by external assessors. Through this process, an organization must exhibit a commitment to nonpartisanship and fairness, transparency of sources, transparency of funding and organization, transparency of methodology, and a commitment to open and honest corrections.)

OUR SECONDARY (sometimes helpful) SOURCES: 

https://www.opensecrets.org/

https://www.verifythis.com

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/

https://www.allsides.com/unbiased-balanced-news

The new BBC Verify

Wonder who fact-checks the fact-checkers? Please read this:

Yes, the Clergy Coaching Network post you shared is largely accurate in its recommendations and descriptions regarding fact-checking resources. Here's a breakdown:

---

✅ Accurate Aspects:

• The Sites Listed:
  All of the primary fact-checking websites listed (AP Fact Check, FactCheck.org, PolitiFact, Reuters, etc.) are real, active, and recognized for their fact-checking efforts.
  Most of them are signatories to the International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN), as claimed.

• IFCN Requirements:
  The post correctly summarizes the IFCN's Code of Principles, including requirements like nonpartisanship, transparency, and rigorous sourcing.

• Secondary Resources:

  • OpenSecrets: A respected site that tracks money in U.S. politics.

  • VerifyThis.com: A project by Tegna with fact-check videos.

  • MediaBiasFactCheck and AllSides: While not IFCN-accredited, they’re often used for media bias awareness, and it's correctly stated they are secondary and sometimes helpful, not primary fact-checkers.

• BBC Verify: A new, real BBC unit launched in 2023 for fact-checking and verifying sources across global news stories.

---

⚠️ Minor Clarifications:

• PBS fact-checking is not always centralized; it depends on individual segments or series like NewsHour, but it's still a reliable source.

• USA Today does have fact-check content, but it's not as comprehensive as some of the others.

---

Yes, this post is credible and useful. It's a solid summary of reliable fact-checking tools, emphasizing using multiple sources and media literacy, which is good advice in today’s information climate.

In a world where truth is often the first casualty of outrage and algorithms, having reliable fact-checking tools isn’t just helpful—it’s essential. Janis’s nudge was a timely reminder that we all have a role to play in promoting honesty and clarity, especially online. So bookmark these sites, use them regularly, and don’t be afraid to pause before sharing. Truth still matters—and the more of us who insist on it, the harder it becomes for misinformation to thrive.

Compiled with aid of ChatGPT

"The Moment We Forget”: Why We Must Remember the Worst of Ourselves

In a haunting monologue from The Twilight Zone episode “Death’s-Head Revisited,” Rod Serling wrote:

"All the Dachaus must remain standing.

"The Dachaus, the Belsens, the Buchenwalds, the Auschwitzes - all of them. They must remain standing because they are a monument to a moment in time when some men decided to turn the earth into a graveyard, into it they shoveled all of their reason, their logic, their knowledge, but worst of all their conscience. And the moment we forget this, the moment we cease to be haunted by its rememberance. Then we become the grave diggers." ~ Rod Serling, from "Death's Head Revisited" (1961)

That warning from 1961 still echoes today — maybe more urgently than ever.

We don’t hide the horrors of our history—because doing so risks repeating them. The generations who survived the worst—World War II, the Holocaust, slavery—came away with a solemn vow: never again. But that promise is only as strong as our memory is honest.

Yet in America today, we’re watching that memory be erased. We're seeing political efforts—often on the right—to whitewash slavery, to strip it from our curricula, to soften the brutal truth of what we did to human beings for hundreds of years. All so we can pretend it wasn’t so bad. That maybe we weren’t that cruel. That maybe it’s time to “move on.”

Trump is whitewashing US history and embracing ‘alternative facts’

Revealed: MaGA algorithms are pushing Gen-Z to pro-Trump content

But history doesn’t move on. It waits.

If we forget, if we sanitize the past to protect our feelings or preserve a myth of national innocence, we risk one day seeing the return of horrors we thought buried. Authoritarianism. Nazism. The machinery of death, gas chambers and all. Or worse—something we can’t yet imagine, just as generations once couldn’t imagine those gas chambers until it was too late.

Germany, unlike us, faced its demons head-on. They didn’t tear down the reminders of their national shame. They preserved them. Taught them. Embedded them into daily life—not to wallow, but to remember. To vaccinate future generations against complicity and denial. Memorials dot the cities. Schoolchildren learn about the Holocaust in depth. Confronting the past is part of being German. That’s what maturity looks like in a democracy.

In contrast, America is regressing. When we ban books that teach our children the truth, or rebrand slavery as “involuntary relocation,” we’re not just failing our history—we’re dooming our future.

We must not become the grave diggers Serling warned us about.

The Dachaus must remain standing.
And so must the truth.

Compiled with aid of ChatGPT

---

Escaping the Political Gravitational Pull: Hope Beyond Destructive Ideologies

Time dilation, as described in general relativity, explains how time moves slower in stronger gravitational fields or at higher velocities. The closer you get to a massive object, like a planet or a black hole, the more time slows down. It's a concept that challenges our common-sense understanding of time, making it seem almost fluid and relative based on the circumstances.

Now, applying this concept to politics is a fascinating idea. Just as gravitational fields warp time, political ideologies warp perceptions of reality. People within certain political "fields" experience time differently, based on the ideologies and alliances they subscribe to. For example, in the case of Trump, JD Vance, and Lindsey Graham, we might see this "time dilation" in how their political careers and actions unfold in different contexts.

Trump, as the central political figure in this metaphor, can be seen as a massive force, akin to a black hole of political gravity. His rhetoric, controversies, and style have created a gravitational pull that bends the perceptions of time for his followers and opponents alike. For Trump supporters (MaGA), time seems to be running at a different pace—they experience a political reality that is far removed from what others perceive as "normal." Political events that might cause outrage or concern for those outside this gravitational field barely register within it.

JD Vance and Lindsey Graham, though caught in Trump's orbit, have a different relationship with the political "time" in which they exist. Vance, for example, has leaned into Trump's narrative, shaping his political career around that gravitational pull. His time in the political sphere is marked by accelerated movements toward policies that align with Trump’s worldview, even if they are seen as eccentric or extreme to outsiders. Meanwhile, Graham, often oscillating between support and criticism of Trump, might experience a form of political "time" that feels constantly shifting, like an object in a fluctuating gravitational field. His oscillations between positions create a sense of instability in his political trajectory.

The contrast between these figures is like observing different time rates in close proximity to one another. Some are accelerating toward certain extreme views, while others are caught in a cycle of adaptation and change, constantly orbiting the larger force of Trump’s political influence.

In this "political time dilation," the slower-paced areas—the moderates or those outside the immediate gravitational influence—see the actions of Trump, Vance, and Graham as more extreme, out of step with conventional political time. Meanwhile, inside their orbit, it feels like a natural progression, even if it appears wildly inconsistent or erratic to outsiders.

Just as in general relativity, where different observers experience time differently depending on their proximity to a gravitational source, political observers feel the impact of major political figures and ideologies in dramatically different ways. Time, in politics, isn’t just a measurement—it’s shaped by the power dynamics that govern who is in control of the "gravitational field."

Fascism has an outsized weight or density to politics and sensibilities, just as does Donald Trump.

Destructive ideologies, like fascism, tend to have greater weight in politics for several reasons, much like how heavy gravitational fields have a more profound impact on time or objects within their reach. Here’s how this works in both a theoretical and practical sense:

1. Centralized Power and Charismatic Leadership: Fascism often gravitates toward a highly centralized, authoritarian structure, where a single leader or a small group controls the political system. The leader becomes a focal point of authority and influence, much like a massive object that pulls everything toward it. This concentration of power makes it easier for destructive thought to spread quickly, because the state machinery, propaganda, and security forces can all be harnessed to reinforce and normalize these ideas.

   In this sense, fascism becomes like a political black hole—everything around it gets drawn in and warped. Once established, fascism tends to consume all opposing views and consolidate its power by eliminating or silencing dissent. Over time, this centralization of control allows fascism to dominate and reshape the political "field" around it.

2. Us vs. Them Mentality: Fascist ideologies thrive on creating clear divides between groups—often based on race, ethnicity, nationalism, or other identity markers. This "us vs. them" mentality can serve to polarize societies and make opposing political thought feel like a threat. By establishing an "enemy" or "outsider," fascism has the power to unify its base under a common cause while justifying the marginalization or violence against those who don’t align with the ideology.

   This division acts like a political gravitational force, warping public discourse and leading to the normalization of violence or oppressive policies. Once this narrative takes hold, it’s harder for more moderate or inclusive viewpoints to be heard, much like how time dilation makes it harder for external observers to perceive events within a gravitational well.

3. Crisis Exploitation: Fascist movements often emerge during times of crisis—whether economic, social, or political. During crises, people tend to feel more vulnerable and desperate for solutions. A charismatic leader promising strong, decisive action can appeal to these anxieties. This creates fertile ground for fascism to flourish, as it promises a way out of chaos through authoritarian control, scapegoating, and radical change.

   The weight of fascism in such contexts is amplified because it feeds on fear and uncertainty. The longer it can dominate the discourse, the harder it becomes for more rational or democratic ideas to push through the distorted political landscape. In a way, the crisis acts as the "initial mass" that accelerates the pull of fascist ideologies, making them even harder to resist.

4. Cultural and Historical Memory: In many cases, fascism doesn't just present new ideas; it taps into historical grievances, cultural myths, and long-standing fears. This historical resonance makes fascist thought more weighty, as it draws on deep-seated prejudices, resentments, and fears. For example, fascist rhetoric may appeal to a nostalgic sense of "lost glory," "national pride," or the idea of restoring a mythical past, creating a sense of urgency to act in a way that is seen as "patriotic" or "necessary."

   The historical weight behind these ideas can be powerful, distorting perceptions of the present and future. Much like how an object with immense mass can alter the trajectory of smaller objects around it, fascist ideas can change the course of political movements and societies.

5. Media and Propaganda: In the modern age, fascist movements have effectively utilized media and propaganda to disseminate their views. By controlling or influencing the narrative, they can shape public opinion and distort the reality of a situation. Propaganda serves as the vehicle that carries fascist ideas, amplifying their weight and reach. The more they saturate public discourse, the harder it becomes for other ideologies to break through.

   In this sense, fascist ideologies spread like a gravitational field that distorts the political conversation. The more people are exposed to the narrative, the more likely they are to accept or normalize it, even if it’s destructive or oppressive. Over time, this manipulation of the media and information becomes a powerful tool to ensure the ideologies maintain their weight in politics.

6. Resistance to Change: Once fascism has taken root in a society, it can create a feedback loop that makes it difficult to break free from. Institutions, laws, and societal norms may be reshaped to align with fascist principles, and these changes become entrenched. The longer this lasts, the harder it is to undo the damage, much like how time becomes irrevocably distorted near a black hole. Even if the political environment changes, the lingering effects of fascism—through laws, economic systems, and social divisions—can persist.

In short, the weight of fascism in politics stems from its ability to consolidate power, create fear-driven unity, exploit crises, draw on historical memory, manipulate media, and resist change. Just as a black hole’s immense gravity warps space and time, fascism warps political systems and societies, often making it harder for moderate or democratic forces to challenge its dominance. The more these elements combine, the greater the ideological pull—and the more difficult it becomes to break free from its influence.

Despite the heavy gravitational pull of destructive ideologies like fascism, there is always potential for resistance and renewal. Just as light can escape from the edges of a black hole if the right conditions align, so too can societies break free from oppressive political forces when people come together with shared values of justice, equality, and democracy. History has shown us that even in the darkest times, movements for freedom, human rights, and progress have emerged stronger, challenging the status quo and restoring balance.

The key is the power of collective action—individuals and communities who refuse to be swayed by fear or division, who seek truth, and who build inclusive political environments. Whether through peaceful protest, the advocacy of truth, or the formation of resilient democratic institutions, it is possible to create a political "field" where hope, compassion, and understanding have a greater weight than fear, hate, and division.

In the end, while ideologies may hold sway for a time, they are not permanent fixtures. People have the power to reshape the trajectory of politics, to rewrite the story, and to move toward a future where the forces of justice and compassion are the ones that define the pace and direction of change.

Compiled with aid of ChatGPT

 

The Voice of JZ Murdock

I've been asked about this a few times. I've been told by some, that my written or authorial "voice" can at times be too much one of absoluteness, coming across in a somewhat arrogant fashion. Which is to imply (their implication is) that I am wrong at those times. Which is ridiculous, but would bolster their argument, whatever it was, against me.

I run into this a lot, mostly when arguing with a conservative, or conspiracy theorist. I don't mean to come off as over confident, just confident in my beliefs, because I've based my life on solid sciences and logic. I'm human, to be sure and I'm not perfect. Nor do I want to be thought of in that way. Being thought to be perfect is way more responsibility than I want.

That certainly is not my intent. To seem self-assured, yes indeed; but not perfect or arrogant, per se.

I have tried for years to cultivate an "authorial voice" for my writings. I remember when I was first told I needed to develop one. What a scary thing to consider. You are told over and over that in order to make it as a writer, you have to do that.

In my fiction writings it would seem that I have done a rather good job of it. So far. You can find out in my latest endeavor if you like, Death of Heaven. This is the ebook version, newly revised with a new cover. The new print version will also be out on Amazon, soon.

In my non-fiction writings, I have always tried to verify my comments before they become opinions. I frequently go out and verify, and re-verify my opinions on things, prior to posting them to the public. I try to find fault with them before sharing them. Sometimes I'm human and I leap before I look, but it's not that often.

Many of the people who (typically) argue with me on these things (as opposed to debating) have (again, typically) not done the same vetting of information and so have support for their opinions (from their chosen probably jaded, media outlets), or other's opinions who tend to agree with them.

With these people it is counterproductive to try and be wishy washy about your own opinion. Make a statement, stand by it, but be damn sure you are right, or at least even relatively close to right.

It always surprises me, especially with people who don't even know me, who don't know that I'm held in high esteem by those who have known me personally for decades; who know my level of integrity, the high esteem I put on Truth as best we can find it, and of having a clear understanding of things; that if you are going to spew your words into the public arena, you'd best have all your ducks in a row.

If only some of those in our media, on a daily basis, had the same concern for accuracy and held their own reputations in higher esteem; not in merely holding themselves in high esteem, which is mostly ego and an entirely different thing altogether.

It always surprises me when someone comes up to me with some new information that is a "game changer", when I then turn on a dime if it is really a new truth out there. Surely in many ways it is an old truth in reality, but to those who newly hear of it, it is a new truth to them. Many, will refuse to believe it, while I will go and try to find to the best of my ability, to prove the opposite of what I believe in, in order to sustain my own beliefs. However, if I cannot then prove my beliefs, then I will simply update them.

Because that is the mature and responsible thing to do.

I have always tried my best to see things as clearly and accurately as I can in as "enlightened" a way as possible. That sometimes means that my truth varies from your truth, because perhaps you are only looking at a specific part of an overall truth; one that most closely relates to you. But that isn't what truth is about.

That is where conservatives have their problems. Where they see "social" programs as bad, because they aren't seeing the overall truth, just the truth as it relates to them. Because why? Because they are more important than the "others". The "others" is a concept in sociology, psychology and philosophy (even physics) that is important and that many discount as unimportant because they can't see the bigger picture. Because the bigger picture isn't important to them. Or they will rationalize how it is so that to them, they are doing the brave or greater good thing, when in reality, they are just fulfilling a selfish promise to themselves.

It has been shown time and again how that bigger picture is important and not just to the bigger group. But there are sometimes where it isn't, too. It is in that dichotomy where people get lost. Because like life, it's not black and white. It's all in shades of grey and the more you look, the murkier it tends to get.

The other element in all this is greed. But let's not get into that here. Okay? Let's move on....

It always surprises me when someone claims that I'm being closed minded (because I refuse to agree to their faulty logic or their lack of information or lack of seeing the bigger picture). Then when I do change my mind on something with new or more accurate information, they are shocked that such a "closed minded" person as my esteemed self, would change my opinion. Because they see themselves in me, more than they are seeing me, in me.

Actually, I'm one of the most open minded people you could meet. I just don't prefer to suffer fools when I can avoid it and like with science, that can come off at times as aggressive or arrogant. It's not. That's just your misconception. I have been around arrogant people and I mostly dislike them, intensely.

UNLESS, they are that good or that correct. Then they have earned their perceived demeanor and others should look at that and not see arrogance, but a solid foundation. They should then question their own opinions.

But you know what? They usually don't. They complain, they make things up, they claim I'm the one who is defective. It's a tactic surely but it's still a tactic. It's not a founded opinion which is reality, accurate information and enough information to actually form a justified opinion.

It always surprises me when someone is surprised that I changed my opinion because of something they said to me. Sometimes they wonder what is wrong with me that I could so easily change my opinion. But that says more about them than me. When you enter a debate with someone, you do not take a-- "me against them", attitude. You take a-- "change my mind if it's reasonable", attitude.

So, if i come off sometimes as arrogant, or too self-assured, you are welcome to try to change my mind; but question yourself first and ask yourself, "have I vetted my own opinion"? Because if you haven't, consider that I probably have.

If you want to enter into a debate with me bring your best tools, and not just ones that make you look or feel good, or reassured in your own opinions. Don't use me to verify your opinions, use me to disprove them. Just as I will do with you, to see if you can disprove my opinions.

We're all in this together. We're all in this (like it or not) for what truly is true.

Because in the end it's not about our opinions that are the most important. It's about the Truth. Not the truth that supports our beliefs, but the Truth for the greatest actuality of what exists and for the greatest number of people. Yes sometimes, you will be on the losing end. So will I.

Deal with it.

It's what adults do.