 |
| "... 30,573 false or misleading claims during his first presidential term..." (Wikipedia source) |
"During and between his terms as President of the United States,
Donald Trump has made tens of thousands of false or misleading claims. Fact-checkers at The Washington Post documented
30,573 false or misleading claims during his first presidential term, an average of 21 per day. Commentators and fact-checkers have described
Trump's lying as
unprecedented in American politics and the consistency of falsehoods as a distinctive part of his business and political identities. Scholarly analysis of Trump's tweets found significant evidence of an intent to deceive." [
Source: False or misleading statements by Donald Trump wikipedia article]
So... If the chief executive officer of our government is a chronic liar, what are we to do? Well, the solution is to fact check him -- fact check him often and regularly and then publicize our findings wherever and whenever we can. In particular, share them on our social media sites.
The good news: It's easy to fact check anyone! Below are some excellent sources that will help get the job done.
5 Excellent Fact Checking Resources
Here are five especially useful web sources for checking the truth of assertions, each best suited to a different kind of claim.
1. Snopes
Snopes is one of the broadest and most recognizable fact-checking sites, with a long track record of investigating rumors, viral posts, hoaxes, and internet myths. It is especially useful when a claim is circulating widely on social media, in email chains, or through word-of-mouth, because it often provides context as well as a clear verdict. It is a strong first stop for “Is this real?” questions about everyday misinformation, including odd stories, scams, and conspiracy-style claims.
2. FactCheck.org
FactCheck.org focuses heavily on U.S. politics and public policy, monitoring the factual accuracy of statements made by major political figures in speeches, debates, ads, interviews, and news releases. It is best for checking claims about legislation, elections, government actions, and politicians’ statements, especially when you want a nonpartisan explanation with supporting evidence. Its value is less about viral rumors in general and more about carefully dissecting political assertions.
3. PolitiFact
PolitiFact is a political fact-checking outlet known for rating claims with its Truth-O-Meter and for publishing source-backed analyses of statements by elected officials and other public figures. It is especially well suited to claims about U.S. politics, campaign rhetoric, public speeches, and policy talking points. If you want a quick sense of whether a political statement is mostly true, misleading, or false, PolitiFact is one of the most useful places to look.
4. Reuters Fact Check
Reuters Fact Check is useful for claims appearing in the news or spreading on social media, and it emphasizes accuracy, transparency, and direct verification through primary sources and experts. It is particularly strong for time-sensitive claims, breaking-news rumors, and public statements that need a neutral, newsroom-style check. Because Reuters is a global wire service, it is often a good choice when the claim is not just political but tied to a current event or widely shared headline.
5. Google Fact Check Tools
Google’s fact-check tools are not a fact-checker in the same sense as the others, but they are very useful for finding whether a claim has already been checked by trusted publishers. They work best when you want to search across many existing fact checks on a topic or person, especially for recurring rumors or claims that have appeared in multiple places. In practice, this is a fast way to discover whether reputable outlets have already investigated the assertion before you spend time searching manually.
When to Use What...
A practical rule: Use Snopes for broad viral claims, FactCheck.org and PolitiFact for U.S. political statements, Reuters Fact Check for news and public-figure claims, and Google’s tools to locate prior fact checks quickly.
