A general election compresses a great deal into a few weeks: manifestos, debates, leaflets through the door, and a constant stream of posts claiming to know what it all means. Most of the people passing those posts on are not liars. They are busy, they trust the person who sent it to them, and the claim fits something they already suspected.
That is how misleading material usually travels. Not through one big coordinated lie, but through hundreds of small decisions to forward something without checking it first. Verification is a habit rather than a talent, and the habit takes about as long as boiling the kettle.
The checklist, in short
- Who is saying it? A named person, a named organisation, or an anonymous account with a cartoon avatar?
- When was it said or captured? Dates get quietly stripped away when things are reshared.
- What is that number a share of? A rise of 40 per cent on a tiny base can mean almost nothing in real terms.
- Is it a percentage or a percentage point? The two are different, and the difference is often blurred on purpose.
- What does the original source say? Find the report, the transcript, the full clip, the manifesto page.
- What sits outside the frame? Caveats, sample sizes, the paragraph before the quote.
- Can you find it in two independent places? If only one account or one outlet has it, wait.
Start with the source, then check the date
Screenshots are the standard delivery method for political misinformation, because a screenshot cannot be clicked through to its context. A screenshot of a tweet, a screenshot of a headline, a screenshot of a "leaked" document: all of them ask you to trust the person who cropped it. So look for the account, the outlet, the document itself. If it does not exist in a form you can read, treat it as a rumour.
Two things are worth knowing about the rules here. The Electoral Commission regulates donations, spending and imprints on campaign material (leaflets must name who promoted and printed them), but it does not rule on whether a claim is true. Ofcom's impartiality rules bind broadcasters, not newspapers or social media accounts. So "nobody has stopped them saying it" is not evidence that it is accurate.
Then check the date. A photograph of a crowded hospital corridor posted this week may have been taken seven years ago. A quotation doing the rounds may come from an interview given long before the policy it is attached to existed. Recycling is the cheapest trick in the book, and it works because nobody checks the timestamp on an image they have already decided to believe.
Two traps with numbers
Ask what it is a share of
"Record numbers" and "up 20 per cent" sound decisive until you ask about the base. Record since when? Record in one category, one region, one month? Figures often rise simply because the population grew, or because a definition changed, or because more people are reporting something that was always happening. When a campaign tells you a number has gone up, the useful question is: compared with what, exactly, and over what period?
Percentage points are not per cent
If a rate moves from 4 per cent to 6 per cent, that is an increase of two percentage points and a rise of 50 per cent. Both statements are technically true, and a campaign will pick whichever sounds more dramatic. Neither is meaningful unless you know the size of the group being measured.
The same scepticism applies to polls. A three-point lead in a survey of a thousand people is not a prediction, and a lead inside the margin of error is not a lead. Polls are snapshots taken through a slightly smudged lens. Treat every "surge" and "collapse" headline as a description of one week's data, not of the result.
Go back to the original
This is the single most effective habit on the list, and the most tedious. Find the source and read it. Not the summary, not the thread about it, not the five-second clip: the transcript, the report, the full recording.
Quotes are routinely trimmed of the sentence that changes their meaning. A politician saying "we cannot claim the NHS is safe in our hands unless we fund it properly" becomes, in the retelling, "the NHS is not safe". A study finding a modest association between two things becomes a headline claiming one causes the other. If a claim rests on "a report says", search for the report on the publishing organisation's own site and read the conclusion, not the press release.
Images and video: three checks worth doing
- Reverse search the image. Google Images, TinEye and Bing Visual Search all let you upload or paste a picture and see where else it has appeared. If the earliest match predates the event it supposedly shows, you have your answer. The InVID and WeVerify browser extension is useful for breaking video into frames.
- Read the small details. Number plates, road markings, shop names, street signs, the language on a banner, the weather, the uniforms. Old photographs carry old logos. A clip from a different country usually gives itself away on a road sign or a plug socket.
- Be slower with audio and video of people saying inflammatory things. Voice cloning and cheap video edits exist, and they are getting better. If a clip is dramatic, unexpected, and available only from one anonymous account, wait for a broadcaster or news organisation to verify it independently before you repeat it.
What is missing, and why you need two sources
Ask what has been left out. The timeframe that makes a trend look better or worse. The caveat in paragraph nine. The fact that the person quoted was answering a different question. Framing is not the same as lying, which is precisely why it slips past people who think they are being careful.
Then apply the two-source rule. If a claim is important, it will be reported by more than one outlet, and usually within the hour. If only one account has it and nothing follows, you have lost nothing by waiting. A useful test: what would change your mind? If the answer is "nothing", you are not checking a claim, you are collecting evidence for something you already believe.
A routine you will actually keep
Four minutes, in this order: source, date, original, numbers, second source. Do it before you share, not after someone corrects you in the replies.
If you cannot verify something that matters, say so plainly. "I don't know yet" is a complete sentence and a defensible position. When you do get something wrong, correct it in the same place you posted it, without a paragraph of self-justification. And when a friend shares something dubious, send them the original document rather than a lecture; people change their minds far more often when they are handed the evidence than when they are told they have been fooled.
One final note for anyone actively campaigning — candidates, agents, volunteers — the rules on imprints, donations, spending and digital advertising are set out in Electoral Commission guidance, and they are worth reading properly rather than skimming. Getting a leaflet wrong is not a matter of opinion; it is a matter of the rules.
Photo: 8385 / Pixabay
