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)

Colorado counselor fights back after faith declared “illegal”

Drew Angerer / Staff | Getty Images

The state is effectively silencing professionals who dare speak truths about gender and sexuality, redefining faith-guided speech as illegal.

This week, free speech is once again on the line before the U.S. Supreme Court. At stake is whether Americans still have the right to talk about faith, morality, and truth in their private practice without the government’s permission.

The case comes out of Colorado, where lawmakers in 2019 passed a ban on what they call “conversion therapy.” The law prohibits licensed counselors from trying to change a minor’s gender identity or sexual orientation, including their behaviors or gender expression. The law specifically targets Christian counselors who serve clients attempting to overcome gender dysphoria and not fall prey to the transgender ideology.

The root of this case isn’t about therapy. It’s about erasing a worldview.

The law does include one convenient exception. Counselors are free to “assist” a person who wants to transition genders but not someone who wants to affirm their biological sex. In other words, you can help a child move in one direction — one that is in line with the state’s progressive ideology — but not the other.

Think about that for a moment. The state is saying that a counselor can’t even discuss changing behavior with a client. Isn’t that the whole point of counseling?

One‑sided freedom

Kaley Chiles, a licensed professional counselor in Colorado Springs, has been one of the victims of this blatant attack on the First Amendment. Chiles has dedicated her practice to helping clients dealing with addiction, trauma, sexuality struggles, and gender dysphoria. She’s also a Christian who serves patients seeking guidance rooted in biblical teaching.

Before 2019, she could counsel minors according to her faith. She could talk about biblical morality, identity, and the path to wholeness. When the state outlawed that speech, she stopped. She followed the law — and then she sued.

Her case, Chiles v. Salazar, is now before the Supreme Court. Justices heard oral arguments on Tuesday. The question: Is counseling a form of speech or merely a government‑regulated service?

If the court rules the wrong way, it won’t just silence therapists. It could muzzle pastors, teachers, parents — anyone who believes in truth grounded in something higher than the state.

Censored belief

I believe marriage between a man and a woman is ordained by God. I believe that family — mother, father, child — is central to His design for humanity.

I believe that men and women are created in God’s image, with divine purpose and eternal worth. Gender isn’t an accessory; it’s part of who we are.

I believe the command to “be fruitful and multiply” still stands, that the power to create life is sacred, and that it belongs within marriage between a man and a woman.

And I believe that when we abandon these principles — when we treat sex as recreation, when we dissolve families, when we forget our vows — society fractures.

Are those statements controversial now? Maybe. But if this case goes against Chiles, those statements and others could soon be illegal to say aloud in public.

Faith on trial

In Colorado today, a counselor cannot sit down with a 15‑year‑old who’s struggling with gender identity and say, “You were made in God’s image, and He does not make mistakes.” That is now considered hate speech.

That’s the “freedom” the modern left is offering — freedom to affirm, but never to question. Freedom to comply, but never to dissent. The same movement that claims to champion tolerance now demands silence from anyone who disagrees. The root of this case isn’t about therapy. It’s about erasing a worldview.

The real test

No matter what happens at the Supreme Court, we cannot stop speaking the truth. These beliefs aren’t political slogans. For me, they are the product of years of wrestling, searching, and learning through pain and grace what actually leads to peace. For us, they are the fundamental principles that lead to a flourishing life. We cannot balk at standing for truth.

Maybe that’s why God allows these moments — moments when believers are pushed to the wall. They force us to ask hard questions: What is true? What is worth standing for? What is worth dying for — and living for?

If we answer those questions honestly, we’ll find not just truth, but freedom.

The state doesn’t grant real freedom — and it certainly isn’t defined by Colorado legislators. Real freedom comes from God. And the day we forget that, the First Amendment will mean nothing at all.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Glenn Beck joins Megyn Kelly LIVE — One night ONLY in Fort Worth!

Get ready for sparks to fly. For the first time in years, Glenn will come face-to-face with Megyn Kelly — and this time, he’s the one in the hot seat. On October 25, 2025, at Dickies Arena in Fort Worth, Texas, Glenn joins Megyn on her “Megyn Kelly Live Tour” for a no-holds-barred conversation that promises laughs, surprises, and maybe even a few uncomfortable questions.

What will happen when two of America’s sharpest voices collide under the spotlight? Will Glenn finally reveal the major announcement he’s been teasing on the radio for weeks? You’ll have to be there to find out.

This promises to be more than just an interview — it’s a live showdown packed with wit, honesty, and the kind of energy you can only feel if you are in the room. Tickets are selling fast, so don’t miss your chance to see Glenn like you’ve never seen him before.

Get your tickets NOW at www.MegynKelly.com before they’re gone!

What our response to Israel reveals about us

JOSEPH PREZIOSO / Contributor | Getty Images

I have been honored to receive the Defender of Israel Award from Prime Minister Netanyahu.

The Jerusalem Post recently named me one of the strongest Christian voices in support of Israel.

And yet, my support is not blind loyalty. It’s not a rubber stamp for any government or policy. I support Israel because I believe it is my duty — first as a Christian, but even if I weren’t a believer, I would still support her as a man of reason, morality, and common sense.

Because faith isn’t required to understand this: Israel’s existence is not just about one nation’s survival — it is about the survival of Western civilization itself.

It is a lone beacon of shared values in the Middle East. It is a bulwark standing against radical Islam — the same evil that seeks to dismantle our own nation from within.

And my support is not rooted in politics. It is rooted in something simpler and older than politics: a people’s moral and historical right to their homeland, and their right to live in peace.

Israel has that right — and the right to defend herself against those who openly, repeatedly vow her destruction.

Let’s make it personal: if someone told me again and again that they wanted to kill me and my entire family — and then acted on that threat — would I not defend myself? Wouldn’t you? If Hamas were Canada, and we were Israel, and they did to us what Hamas has done to them, there wouldn’t be a single building left standing north of our border. That’s not a question of morality.

That’s just the truth. All people — every people — have a God-given right to protect themselves. And Israel is doing exactly that.

My support for Israel’s right to finish the fight against Hamas comes after eighty years of rejected peace offers and failed two-state solutions. Hamas has never hidden its mission — the eradication of Israel. That’s not a political disagreement.

That’s not a land dispute. That is an annihilationist ideology. And while I do not believe this is America’s war to fight, I do believe — with every fiber of my being — that it is Israel’s right, and moral duty, to defend her people.

Criticism of military tactics is fair. That’s not antisemitism. But denying Israel’s right to exist, or excusing — even celebrating — the barbarity of Hamas? That’s something far darker.

We saw it on October 7th — the face of evil itself. Women and children slaughtered. Babies burned alive. Innocent people raped and dragged through the streets. And now, to see our own fellow citizens march in defense of that evil… that is nothing short of a moral collapse.

If the chants in our streets were, “Hamas, return the hostages — Israel, stop the bombing,” we could have a conversation.

But that’s not what we hear.

What we hear is open sympathy for genocidal hatred. And that is a chasm — not just from decency, but from humanity itself. And here lies the danger: that same hatred is taking root here — in Dearborn, in London, in Paris — not as horror, but as heroism. If we are not vigilant, the enemy Israel faces today will be the enemy the free world faces tomorrow.

This isn’t about politics. It’s about truth. It’s about the courage to call evil by its name and to say “Never again” — and mean it.

And you don’t have to open a Bible to understand this. But if you do — if you are a believer — then this issue cuts even deeper. Because the question becomes: what did God promise, and does He keep His word?

He told Abraham, “I will bless those who bless you, and curse those who curse you.” He promised to make Abraham the father of many nations and to give him “the whole land of Canaan.” And though Abraham had other sons, God reaffirmed that promise through Isaac. And then again through Isaac’s son, Jacob — Israel — saying: “The land I gave to Abraham and Isaac I give to you and to your descendants after you.”

That’s an everlasting promise.

And from those descendants came a child — born in Bethlehem — who claimed to be the Savior of the world. Jesus never rejected His title as “son of David,” the great King of Israel.

He said plainly that He came “for the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” And when He returns, Scripture says He will return as “the Lion of the tribe of Judah.” And where do you think He will go? Back to His homeland — Israel.

Tamir Kalifa / Stringer | Getty Images

And what will He find when He gets there? His brothers — or his brothers’ enemies? Will the roads where He once walked be preserved? Or will they lie in rubble, as Gaza does today? If what He finds looks like the aftermath of October 7th, then tell me — what will be my defense as a Christian?

Some Christians argue that God’s promises to Israel have been transferred exclusively to the Church. I don’t believe that. But even if you do, then ask yourself this: if we’ve inherited the promises, do we not also inherit the land? Can we claim the birthright and then, like Esau, treat it as worthless when the world tries to steal it?

So, when terrorists come to slaughter Israelis simply for living in the land promised to Abraham, will we stand by? Or will we step forward — into the line of fire — and say,

“Take me instead”?

Because this is not just about Israel’s right to exist.

It’s about whether we still know the difference between good and evil.

It’s about whether we still have the courage to stand where God stands.

And if we cannot — if we will not — then maybe the question isn’t whether Israel will survive. Maybe the question is whether we will.

America’s moral erosion: How we were conditioned to accept the unthinkable

MATHIEU LEWIS-ROLLAND / Contributor | Getty Images

Every time we look away from lawlessness, we tell the next mob it can go a little further.

Chicago, Portland, and other American cities are showing us what happens when the rule of law breaks down. These cities have become openly lawless — and that’s not hyperbole.

When a governor declares she doesn’t believe federal agents about a credible threat to their lives, when Chicago orders its police not to assist federal officers, and when cartels print wanted posters offering bounties for the deaths of U.S. immigration agents, you’re looking at a country flirting with anarchy.

Two dangers face us now: the intimidation of federal officers and the normalization of soldiers as street police. Accept either, and we lose the republic.

This isn’t a matter of partisan politics. The struggle we’re watching now is not between Democrats and Republicans. It’s between good and evil, right and wrong, self‑government and chaos.

Moral erosion

For generations, Americans have inherited a republic based on law, liberty, and moral responsibility. That legacy is now under assault by extremists who openly seek to collapse the system and replace it with something darker.

Antifa, well‑financed by the left, isn’t an isolated fringe any more than Occupy Wall Street was. As with Occupy, big money and global interests are quietly aligned with “anti‑establishment” radicals. The goal is disruption, not reform.

And they’ve learned how to condition us. Twenty‑five years ago, few Americans would have supported drag shows in elementary schools, biological males in women’s sports, forced vaccinations, or government partnerships with mega‑corporations to decide which businesses live or die. Few would have tolerated cartels threatening federal agents or tolerated mobs doxxing political opponents. Yet today, many shrug — or cheer.

How did we get here? What evidence convinced so many people to reverse themselves on fundamental questions of morality, liberty, and law? Those long laboring to disrupt our republic have sought to condition people to believe that the ends justify the means.

Promoting “tolerance” justifies women losing to biological men in sports. “Compassion” justifies harboring illegal immigrants, even violent criminals. Whatever deluded ideals Antifa espouses is supposed to somehow justify targeting federal agents and overturning the rule of law. Our culture has been conditioned for this moment.

The buck stops with us

That’s why the debate over using troops to restore order in American cities matters so much. I’ve never supported soldiers executing civilian law, and I still don’t. But we need to speak honestly about what the Constitution allows and why. The Posse Comitatus Act sharply limits the use of the military for domestic policing. The Insurrection Act, however, exists for rare emergencies — when federal law truly can’t be enforced by ordinary means and when mobs, cartels, or coordinated violence block the courts.

Even then, the Constitution demands limits: a public proclamation ordering offenders to disperse, transparency about the mission, a narrow scope, temporary duration, and judicial oversight.

Soldiers fight wars. Cops enforce laws. We blur that line at our peril.

But we also cannot allow intimidation of federal officers or tolerate local officials who openly obstruct federal enforcement. Both extremes — lawlessness on one side and militarization on the other — endanger the republic.

The only way out is the Constitution itself. Protect civil liberty. Enforce the rule of law. Demand transparency. Reject the temptation to justify any tactic because “our side” is winning. We’ve already seen how fear after 9/11 led to the Patriot Act and years of surveillance.

KAMIL KRZACZYNSKI / Contributor | Getty Images

Two dangers face us now: the intimidation of federal officers and the normalization of soldiers as street police. Accept either, and we lose the republic. The left cannot be allowed to shut down enforcement, and the right cannot be allowed to abandon constitutional restraint.

The real threat to the republic isn’t just the mobs or the cartels. It’s us — citizens who stop caring about truth and constitutional limits. Anything can be justified when fear takes over. Everything collapses when enough people decide “the ends justify the means.”

We must choose differently. Uphold the rule of law. Guard civil liberties. And remember that the only way to preserve a government of, by, and for the people is to act like the people still want it.