Comment: No. You don't have to even

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: Citing sources? So these (see in situ)

No. You don't have to even

No. You don't have to even bother with the high-profile sources. Just take any Infowars article and look at the sources the article cites -- it's some blog or some other citation-phobic site. You'll have to find key words and work your google seach skills to hunt down an original source. By the time you're two sources deep, you'll realize you're working harder than any Infowars reporter did to produce the story.

The last Infowars article I fact checked was some something about GMO corn being Oh-So-Bad based on a "report." The "report" was never cited, either in the Infowars piece or in the copy-paste websites of equally ill-repute that Infowars stole it from. I finally tracked down the source and called. The lead on this "report" told methat it was just a preliminary comparison his company -- which, by the way, is a company that basically sells non-GMO farming products -- did. In no way scientific and he's hoping the company will launch an actual scientific study of the subject his summer.

In other words, Infowars blasted a headline and article without knowing who it was from, or what dog that who had in the fight, or whether it was even a legitimate finding.

If AJ and his crew can't be bothered to tell the truth about a little non-GMO farm company's internal comparison, they sure suspects when it comes to truth telling about...well, everything.

Trust the big stuff by those who prove trustworthy in the small stuff. I've fact-checked four of Infowars articles now; None has passed even a sorority-level scrutiny.

If you want to believe, believe. Just don't pretend you're believing because you're interested in truth. Separate your needs and be as objective as possible. Fact check an Inforwars article back to primary sources, in context. See what you get.