So I’m preparing to do my final fact check, and I want to brainstorm three possible topics to cover. I want to cover something that is somewhat complex in order to make an insightful fact check.
I poked around some articles by searching “news” and “recent study” with Google. I found three claims, and I’ll need to decide on one to fact check for next time.
“Standing too much at work may be even worse for your health than sitting.”
“Infants try harder after seeing adults struggle to achieve a goal.”
This article comes from MIT News, which is an online publication hosted by Massachusetts Institute of Technology. The source used in this article is MIT itself, which complicates our purposes a bit. There are no links to the original study, although the source seems pretty reliable already. There could possibly be a way to track this study down though, which would be an interesting direction to take for the final fact check.
“Children at risk of psychopathy respond differently to laughter.”
This article was posted on Medical News Today, and the reference for this claim came from Current Biology, which ranked at 8.851 on the impact factor scale. This is even higher than the impact factor of the American Journal of Epidemiology!
This is a sign that the claim presented in the journal is pretty reliable. However, I noticed that Medical News Today uses the word “children” to present their claims, while the original study uses “boys” in the title:
The contradicting language used could be a neat direction to take in my final fact check blog. I like the complex dynamic between the impact factor and the language used in both source’s articles. This could definitely be interesting to investigate further.
Regardless of the topic that I end up choosing, these three options give me the opportunity to practice going upstream, reading laterally, and checking claims derived from scholarly research.