10 Questions to Help You Identify Fake News

December 06, 2016

Writer

Fake news has become a problem. People unwilling to do their homework share news that is misleading or outright untrue --- and it's causing real problems.

"You get 100,000 people to retweet --- or even read --- you're more read than a published author, many published authors," Glenn said Monday on radio. "So . . . the responsibility is now on you."

Glenn shared ten questions that will help gauge whether a news story is real --- or fake. If you can't confirm its authenticity, don't share it, tweet it or post it.

10 Questions to Help You Identify Fake News

1 | Gauge your emotional reaction. Is it strong? Are you angry? Are you intensely hoping that the information turns out to be true or false?

2 | Reflect on how you encountered this. Was it promoted on a website? Did it show up in a social media feed? Was it sent to you by someone you know?

3 | Does it use excessive punctuation? Does it use all caps for emphasis?

4 | Does it claim to contain a secret or tell you something the media doesn't want you to know? Is anyone else reporting on this story?

5 | Is there a byline or an author's name attached to the piece?

6 | Does the About section of the website describe itself as fantasy news or satirical news?

7 | Does a person or an organization that produced the information have any editorial standards?

8 | Does the Contact Us section include an email address that matches the domain, not a gmail or Yahoo email?

9 | Does a quick search for the website name raise any suspicions?

10 | Does the example you're evaluating have a current date on it?

Let's exercise our personal responsibility before sharing news on social media.

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

Below is a rush transcript of this segment, it might contain errors:

GLENN: All right. Welcome back to the program. So now -- there are ten questions that you need to ask yourself to be able to get -- to be able to detect fake news.

Now, imagine --

PAT: How many questions?

GLENN: Ten.

PAT: That's too many. Nobody will do that. They might ask themselves one question. But that's about it.

STU: This is a rough description of what I think every person who is in the media does when they see --

GLENN: This is what we do.

PAT: It is what we do. But will the average person do ten questions?

STU: Right.

GLENN: If you want to be free and you want to be a publisher -- this is the thing, I think Facebook should change the word "post" to "publish." You know, I've talked about that for a while. You need to understand that you are a publisher now. You are Simon & Schuster.

PAT: Would anybody care about that? I'm a publisher now. I'm going to be more careful.

(laughter)

GLENN: We have to -- we have to show people. You could post or tweet something that is read by many more people --

PAT: Uh-huh.

GLENN: -- than most books that are published today.

PAT: That's for sure.

GLENN: Okay? You get 100,000 people to retweet -- or, to even read, you've -- you're more read than a published author, many published authors.

PAT: Most.

STU: Not even close.

GLENN: Yeah. The days of 2 million sellers. Those are over. Those are long gone.

PAT: Except for a select few.

GLENN: Yeah. So it is -- the responsibility is now on you. And so the author has a responsibility -- I can't turn in tripe to Simon & Schuster. I can't turn stuff in that is just -- neither can the New York Times, turn stuff in that is absolute tripe because you have the fact-checkers. And they are hired by the publisher to go through every word and -- can you -- can you prove that? Can you footnote that? Can you give me some evidence of that?

That's why we have -- well, I can't say we trust anybody anymore. But we used to trust the media. And I've -- I've got a reason -- I've got a long list of reasons why I think we don't trust the media and whose fault this is. And it includes us.

Number one on the list is us. We have to be responsible. But there's many reasons why this fake news thing is working. And there's also many reasons why this fake news thing is happening. And not -- and a lot of it is for anarchy purposes. I don't think this is against the Democrats. I think this is somebody who is a burn the whole system down, that started this. I could be wrong.

STU: No, I think you're right. Certainly several of the names in there are people that believe that type of thing.

GLENN: Right. So burn the system down. So they're going to make you smear and make you doubt everyone on all sides and box you into a corner where you have no hope. There's nothing I can do. It's too big. It's too persuasive. It's everywhere. I'm the only one. It's me and you that know the truth.

That's the problem. So here's the thing that my Aunt Joanne is supposed to do before she sends me something: One, gauge your emotional reaction. Is it strong? Are you angry? Are you intensely hoping that the information turns out to be true or false? That's the first thing

STU: Just think about just step one, how difficult that is for most people to do. Like the reason emotion can be an issue in areas like this is because it overwhelms your sense to detect how you feel.

GLENN: And what happens? We know when the human brain is angry or scared, what's the -- what is the natural human response? What happens to the human brain?

Reason shuts down.

STU: Uh-huh.

GLENN: The -- the animal man -- the -- what do they call it?

PAT: The lizard brain.

GLENN: The lizard brain.

That takes over.

STU: That's why we constantly complain about every -- if there's a tragedy guns, that's not the most appropriate time for new gun legislation.

GLENN: Correct. It's why we have the constitutional balance of power that we have.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: Everybody says, "Nothing ever gets done in Washington." That was the point. To slow it down -- to slow the process down so the people can never act irrationally.

STU: Right. When you feel passionately about something one day, you don't make the law the next day.

GLENN: Yes. Two, reflect on how you encountered this. Was it promoted on a website? Did it show up in a social media feed? Was it sent to you by someone you know?

Three -- I love this. Does it use excessive punctuation?

PAT: That's a good key.

GLENN: It is. Does it use all caps for emphasis?

I immediately dismiss it if it's a news source that's using all caps or punctuation, like excessive exclamation points.

PAT: Yeah. You know what else you can almost discount immediately, is if it starts out, the FBI has already confirmed this! It's almost always untrue. That's just not true.

(laughter)

GLENN: Does it claim -- does it make a claim about a secret, or is it telling you something that the media doesn't want you to know?

STU: That doesn't mean every -- you know, we complain about media bias. I think the left complains about media bias as well. And just because a story isn't getting a proper attention that you believe it should, that's different than, "You know what, I know a guy at the FBI who is telling me this story is true, and no one will talk about it."

GLENN: This is actually on my list of how this is happening. We don't believe the news. Okay? Nobody really believes the news anymore. It's -- we respect serial killers as much as we respect news people.

STU: Right.

PAT: So we don't believe the news. That's the most -- and then we say, "The media is not covering it." As somebody -- I told you. As somebody who didn't read the stereotypical news from the right, I went and got all new sources and was like, "You know what, I'm going to read -- my main source of news was the Huffington Post. I'm going to read the Huffington Post for a month and not read the other side.

Two things happened: One, there was a lot of news that was not covered in the Huffington Post. That the other side covered. But there's also an equal number of stories that were covered in the Huffington Post that the -- that the right didn't cover.

And then on top of it, there was another thing. I heard people say, "Media is not covering it." I know I've said that. "And you're not seeing it in the media anywhere." You know why you're not seeing it in the media? Because you're not watching the media anymore.

You've made your decision of, "I can't trust them, and so I know they're not covering this." Well, yeah, actually they are. You're just not watching those sources. And the sources you are watching are saying -- reinforcing what you already believe. They're not covering this. They don't want you to know that.

STU: And that's the circle that happens with social media because social media recognizes the stories that you like and read. So it gives you more of those. And then you really never see anything --

GLENN: Correct. So social media -- we've self-selected out. If you're on the right, you say, "CNN, that's not a credible source." So you never watch CNN anymore.

So they could be covering everything, you just don't know it. And you'll continue to say they're not covering it, because you don't ever watch them.

The Facebook thing is even worse because it's an algorithm. And the more you like a story, it notices the trends. And so it leaves out all of the stuff -- it's why it is -- it's critical that you follow people you don't agree with. You follow CNN. You follow Fox News, if you're on the other side. You follow the Huffington Post.

You read the stories, and you follow those people. Otherwise, they're going to be weeded out. And your viewpoint is going to get more and more narrow. And depending on what you're liking. If you're liking this stuff, all of a sudden your news is going to be all coming from Alex Jones. Really dangerous. Alex Jones. Daily cost (phonetic), really dangerous. Don't do it.

PAT: Where else are you going to find out about gay frogs?

GLENN: I know. Fluoride in the drinking water.

STU: Did CNN actually cover that story?

PAT: No. No, they didn't. What about the suicidal shrimp? We only found that out from Alex.

JEFFY: Thank you. Oh, my gosh.

GLENN: I know. I know. There is this: They claim to make they're containing a secret or telling you something the media doesn't want you to know. Is anyone reporting on this story? Is anyone else reporting on this story? I would like to add the question: Is there perhaps another reason besides a conspiracy for others not reporting on this story?

Is there a byline or an author's name attached to this piece? You might want to click on that too.

PAT: That's good.

GLENN: Go to the website's About section. Does the site describe itself as fantasy news or satirical news?

Does a person or an organization that produced the information have any editorial standards?

Does the Contact Us section include an email address that matches the domain, not a Gmail or Yahoo email? Does a quick search for the name of the website raise any suspicions? Does the example you're evaluating have a current date on it? Does the example -- how many times have we seen that?

STU: Oh, yeah. That's a big one.

GLENN: Where there's a story that's like five or ten years old.

PAT: Yeah.

STU: And they'll just --

PAT: Happens all the time.

STU: Happens all the time.

GLENN: All the time.

STU: They'll just repost it or just reshare it, and all of a sudden, everyone thinks it's new again.

PAT: If you actually went this deep in your investigation, you could almost eliminate fake news.

STU: Right. The problem is there's no incentive for the average person to do this.

GLENN: Right.

STU: We go through this sort of process. Not all of those steps and some that aren't on this -- when there's a story that looks interesting that may or may not be fake.

At this point, we've done it so many times, you can tell by the headline usually or go a little bit into it, you can confirm whether it's real or fake. But the average person -- if we were not in this industry, I would probably look at the headline and judge for myself. And hopefully, overtime, I would come up with judgment that would weed out some of the bad things.

But I would not be taking ten individual steps to -- before I shared a story on Facebook because it's not that big of a deal. I would just do it.

PAT: But if it sounds too fantastical, it probably is.

STU: It probably is.

GLENN: But the problem is also -- again, I go back to the publish button. None of us feel -- some of us share things and go, "Hey, have you heard about this?" Expecting that somebody is going to say, "Oh, yeah, I heard about this. No, that's not true." You know what I mean? I get stuff in my email all the time from people that is really easy to say, "No. This is not true." I get it all the time. People say, "Glenn, can you have your staff look into this?"

No. But you could go to Snopes.com and see not true.

STU: And, of course, Snopes. That's also fake news. That's what they did with the gunman in this pizza shop.

GLENN: I know.

STU: Immediately, the people who were pushing the Pizzagate story said that the gunman going to the pizza shop was just a cover-up.

GLENN: That is the problem -- when somebody says -- how many times have I said -- this has been a mantra. I don't ask you for your trust. I don't want your trust. Don't trust me. And anybody who says, "Trust me," don't trust them. I ask you to listen, engage your brain, and then do your own homework. You have to do your own homework.

Somebody who says, "Oh, believe me, this is absolutely true. No, believe me."

PAT: Believe me.

GLENN: Believe me.

PAT: Nobody would actually just keep saying that though over and over.

JEFFY: No. Because then they would realize -- they would realize that was the point.

GLENN: When they do, do your own homework.

PAT: Uh-huh.

GLENN: That is the -- that is the -- Ben Franklin. What have you given us, Mr. Franklin?" What did he say? A republic, if you can keep it.

PAT: If you can keep it.

GLENN: It requires us to do our own homework. Don't listen to us and say, "Well, I heard it on the Glenn Beck Program." Yeah, you know what, we get it wrong sometimes. If it sounds --

PAT: Rarely.

GLENN: If it sounds like it's not right, go check it out. Even if it's from a credible source. You've been wrong. You're expecting everybody else to be absolutely right every time? No.

STU: I can believe the guy that sold me that '84 Dodson though, right? I mean, 612 horsepower in a Dodson. Who -- I mean, that's incredible.

GLENN: Yeah. Who knew? Who knew? Yeah, yeah.

JEFFY: How is that working out?

STU: You know, at the time -- little -- some issue.

PAT: It doesn't work?

STU: It doesn't have an engine.

Featured Image: A woman looks at a mobile phone as she stands on a path. (Photo Credit: ED JONES/AFP/Getty Images)

'Rage against the dying of the light': Charlie Kirk lived that mandate

PHILL MAGAKOE / Contributor | Getty Images

Kirk’s tragic death challenges us to rise above fear and anger, to rebuild bridges where others build walls, and to fight for the America he believed in.

I’ve only felt this weight once before. It was 2001, just as my radio show was about to begin. The World Trade Center fell, and I was called to speak immediately. I spent the day and night by my bedside, praying for words that could meet the moment.

Yesterday, I found myself in the same position. September 11, 2025. The assassination of Charlie Kirk. A friend. A warrior for truth.

Out of this tragedy, the tyrant dies, but the martyr’s influence begins.

Moments like this make words feel inadequate. Yet sometimes, words from another time speak directly to our own. In 1947, Dylan Thomas, watching his father slip toward death, penned lines that now resonate far beyond his own grief:

Do not go gentle into that good night. / Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Thomas was pleading for his father to resist the impending darkness of death. But those words have become a mandate for all of us: Do not surrender. Do not bow to shadows. Even when the battle feels unwinnable.

Charlie Kirk lived that mandate. He knew the cost of speaking unpopular truths. He knew the fury of those who sought to silence him. And yet he pressed on. In his life, he embodied a defiance rooted not in anger, but in principle.

Picking up his torch

Washington, Jefferson, Adams — our history was started by men who raged against an empire, knowing the gallows might await. Lincoln raged against slavery. Martin Luther King Jr. raged against segregation. Every generation faces a call to resist surrender.

It is our turn. Charlie’s violent death feels like a knockout punch. Yet if his life meant anything, it means this: Silence in the face of darkness is not an option.

He did not go gently. He spoke. He challenged. He stood. And now, the mantle falls to us. To me. To you. To every American.

We cannot drift into the shadows. We cannot sit quietly while freedom fades. This is our moment to rage — not with hatred, not with vengeance, but with courage. Rage against lies, against apathy, against the despair that tells us to do nothing. Because there is always something you can do.

Even small acts — defiance, faith, kindness — are light in the darkness. Reaching out to those who mourn. Speaking truth in a world drowning in deceit. These are the flames that hold back the night. Charlie carried that torch. He laid it down yesterday. It is ours to pick up.

The light may dim, but it always does before dawn. Commit today: I will not sleep as freedom fades. I will not retreat as darkness encroaches. I will not be silent as evil forces claim dominion. I have no king but Christ. And I know whom I serve, as did Charlie.

Two turning points, decades apart

On Wednesday, the world changed again. Two tragedies, separated by decades, bound by the same question: Who are we? Is this worth saving? What kind of people will we choose to be?

Imagine a world where more of us choose to be peacemakers. Not passive, not silent, but builders of bridges where others erect walls. Respect and listening transform even the bitterest of foes. Charlie Kirk embodied this principle.

He did not strike the weak; he challenged the powerful. He reached across divides of politics, culture, and faith. He changed hearts. He sparked healing. And healing is what our nation needs.

At the center of all this is one truth: Every person is a child of God, deserving of dignity. Change will not happen in Washington or on social media. It begins at home, where loneliness and isolation threaten our souls. Family is the antidote. Imperfect, yes — but still the strongest source of stability and meaning.

Mark Wilson / Staff | Getty Images

Forgiveness, fidelity, faithfulness, and honor are not dusty words. They are the foundation of civilization. Strong families produce strong citizens. And today, Charlie’s family mourns. They must become our family too. We must stand as guardians of his legacy, shining examples of the courage he lived by.

A time for courage

I knew Charlie. I know how he would want us to respond: Multiply his courage. Out of this tragedy, the tyrant dies, but the martyr’s influence begins. Out of darkness, great and glorious things will sprout — but we must be worthy of them.

Charlie Kirk lived defiantly. He stood in truth. He changed the world. And now, his torch is in our hands. Rage, not in violence, but in unwavering pursuit of truth and goodness. Rage against the dying of the light.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Glenn Beck resurrects the 9-12 Project to support Charlie Kirk's family

Glenn Beck is once again calling on his loyal listeners and viewers to come together and channel the same unity and purpose that defined the historic 9-12 Project. That movement, born in the wake of national challenges, brought millions together to revive core values of faith, hope, and charity.

Glenn created the original 9-12 Project in early 2009 to bring Americans back to where they were in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. In those moments, we weren't Democrats and Republicans, conservative or liberal, Red States or Blue States, we were united as one, as America. The original 9-12 Project aimed to root America back in the founding principles of this country that united us during those darkest of days.

This new initiative draws directly from that legacy, focusing on supporting the family of Charlie Kirk in these dark days following his tragic murder.

The revival of the 9-12 Project aims to secure the long-term well-being of Charlie Kirk's wife and children. All donations will go straight to meeting their immediate and future needs. If the family deems the funds surplus to their requirements, Charlie's wife has the option to redirect them toward the vital work of Turning Point USA.

This campaign is more than just financial support—it's a profound gesture of appreciation for Kirk's tireless dedication to the cause of liberty. It embodies the unbreakable bond of our community, proving that when we stand united, we can make a real difference.
Glenn Beck invites you to join this effort. Show your solidarity by donating today and honoring Charlie Kirk and his family in this meaningful way.

You can learn more about the 9-12 Project and donate HERE

The dangerous lie: Rights as government privileges, not God-given

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

When politicians claim that rights flow from the state, they pave the way for tyranny.

Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) recently delivered a lecture that should alarm every American. During a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing, he argued that believing rights come from a Creator rather than government is the same belief held by Iran’s theocratic regime.

Kaine claimed that the principles underpinning Iran’s dictatorship — the same regime that persecutes Sunnis, Jews, Christians, and other minorities — are also the principles enshrined in our Declaration of Independence.

In America, rights belong to the individual. In Iran, rights serve the state.

That claim exposes either a profound misunderstanding or a reckless indifference to America’s founding. Rights do not come from government. They never did. They come from the Creator, as the Declaration of Independence proclaims without qualification. Jefferson didn’t hedge. Rights are unalienable — built into every human being.

This foundation stands worlds apart from Iran. Its leaders invoke God but grant rights only through clerical interpretation. Freedom of speech, property, religion, and even life itself depend on obedience to the ruling clerics. Step outside their dictates, and those so-called rights vanish.

This is not a trivial difference. It is the essence of liberty versus tyranny. In America, rights belong to the individual. The government’s role is to secure them, not define them. In Iran, rights serve the state. They empower rulers, not the people.

From Muhammad to Marx

The same confusion applies to Marxist regimes. The Soviet Union’s constitutions promised citizens rights — work, health care, education, freedom of speech — but always with fine print. If you spoke out against the party, those rights evaporated. If you practiced religion openly, you were charged with treason. Property and voting were allowed as long as they were filtered and controlled by the state — and could be revoked at any moment. Rights were conditional, granted through obedience.

Kaine seems to be advocating a similar approach — whether consciously or not. By claiming that natural rights are somehow comparable to sharia law, he ignores the critical distinction between inherent rights and conditional privileges. He dismisses the very principle that made America a beacon of freedom.

Jefferson and the founders understood this clearly. “We are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights,” they wrote. No government, no cleric, no king can revoke them. They exist by virtue of humanity itself. The government exists to protect them, not ration them.

This is not a theological quibble. It is the entire basis of our government. Confuse the source of rights, and tyranny hides behind piety or ideology. The people are disempowered. Clerics, bureaucrats, or politicians become arbiters of what rights citizens may enjoy.

John Greim / Contributor | Getty Images

Gifts from God, not the state

Kaine’s statement reflects either a profound ignorance of this principle or an ideological bias that favors state power over individual liberty. Either way, Americans must recognize the danger. Understanding the origin of rights is not academic — it is the difference between freedom and submission, between the American experiment and theocratic or totalitarian rule.

Rights are not gifts from the state. They are gifts from God, secured by reason, protected by law, and defended by the people. Every American must understand this. Because when rights come from government instead of the Creator, freedom disappears.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

POLL: Is Gen Z’s anger over housing driving them toward socialism?

NurPhoto / Contributor | Getty Images

A recent poll conducted by Justin Haskins, a long-time friend of the show, has uncovered alarming trends among young Americans aged 18-39, revealing a generation grappling with deep frustrations over economic hardships, housing affordability, and a perceived rigged system that favors the wealthy, corporations, and older generations. While nearly half of these likely voters approve of President Trump, seeing him as an anti-establishment figure, over 70% support nationalizing major industries, such as healthcare, energy, and big tech, to promote "equity." Shockingly, 53% want a democratic socialist to win the 2028 presidential election, including a third of Trump voters and conservatives in this age group. Many cite skyrocketing housing costs, unfair taxation on the middle class, and a sense of being "stuck" or in crisis as driving forces, with 62% believing the economy is tilted against them and 55% backing laws to confiscate "excess wealth" like second homes or luxury items to help first-time buyers.

This blend of Trump support and socialist leanings suggests a volatile mix: admiration for disruptors who challenge the status quo, coupled with a desire for radical redistribution to address personal struggles. Yet, it raises profound questions about the roots of this discontent—Is it a failure of education on history's lessons about socialism's failures? Media indoctrination? Or genuine systemic barriers? And what does it portend for the nation’s trajectory—greater division, a shift toward authoritarian policies, or an opportunity for renewal through timeless values like hard work and individual responsibility?

Glenn wants to know what YOU think: Where do Gen Z's socialist sympathies come from? What does it mean for the future of America? Make your voice heard in the poll below:

Do you believe the Gen Z support for socialism comes from perceived economic frustrations like unaffordable housing and a rigged system favoring the wealthy and corporations?

Do you believe the Gen Z support for socialism, including many Trump supporters, is due to a lack of education about the historical failures of socialist systems?

Do you think that these poll results indicate a growing generational divide that could lead to more political instability and authoritarian tendencies in America's future?

Do you think that this poll implies that America's long-term stability relies on older generations teaching Gen Z and younger to prioritize self-reliance, free-market ideals, and personal accountability?

Glenn's Show Prep