Lately we hear a lot about “fake news.” But what does it mean? Where does it come from? I have outlined some of my thoughts about where we are getting political influence, and sadly, it may be coming from a new marketing approach gone wrong.

As most know, many companies use content to build trust with their prospects and customers by giving away free knowledge. They don’t give away the farm – it’s usually basic, introductory information, but enough to help someone know what they don’t know and get additional information.

However, content marketing can be used for less noble purposes. Most often that purpose includes pushing specific messages or perspectives to unknowing readers. An article may infuse opinions and editorial commentary among facts, making it seem authoritative and informative. Add some social media posts to show how many people agree with you, as if they are a source of truth, and you have what seems to most readers as a solid argument for your opinion.

A number of news organizations have used a strategy like this in the past to “create” news (there was a rise of editorializing news on some networks because there just wasn’t enough news to talk about). I think we have learned that this approach typically confuses viewers and readers from understanding what’s a fact and what’s an opinion.

Well, there are two types of “fake news”:

1. Poor journalism. This includes when an article is not fact-checked, biased and opinionated. It also includes when an article reports on situations taken out of context or the report doesn’t include the entire story (including backstory, which can change the perspective of a situation). Poor journalism also happens when, more recently, a journalist will turn a blind eye to a problem to get access to a leader for an interview. However, the more common case happens when a journalist will infuse his or her own opinion into news and editorialize, not being unbiased in covering. Or use a part of situation to support his own perspective (and leave out what doesn’t support it).

2. Content marketing posing as news. There is a new breed of “fake news” that uses content marketing principles to influence readers to believe a certain way. It tries to appear as news, but it really isn’t news at all. It is content marketing for news and politics.

I’ll be addressing the second type of news. The first type, poor journalism, can be determined by validating news sources. So if you see something outrageous in an article or headline, do a quick search and validate if what you are reading is true – or not. I recommend reading 2-4 publications per day to stay balanced, notice consistencies, and suss out the true story on your own. To stay informed you need to get a full picture of what’s happening. Unfortunately, reading one news source won’t do it anymore.

If you read a headline that sounds sensational, like something like it is from the National Enquirer or Star, it probably is. Anything that starts with, “You won’t believe,” or “Shocker:” or “Yuuuge!” probably isn’t all that shocking or “yuge” in the first place. If anything it’s alarmist.

The goal of these headlines is for you to click on them and read the article. These publications are looking for clicks and page views. They aren’t concerned about the accuracy of the news they are presenting. They aren’t concerned about journalistic integrity. They want to get you shocked, fearful, curious – wanting to know more.

You may want to stay away from anything that sounds straight out of an alarmist toolkit. Sure, there may be truth to it, but most likely, you aren’t going to read as many facts as you do unfounded opinions that twist events into a perspective that will make sense to you and support your worldview.

I think this is vital to tell the difference between a news site and a content marketing site. The basis of good journalism lies in original news research and reporting, which includes

• Interviews
• Eyewitness accounts
• Live footage
• On-site fact gathering
• Referencing 3rd party research in an article

Most content marketing sites don’t have this. What they will do is reference a Reuters or Associated Press news item, link to it, and then proceed to put their own spin on it. Some publications are shameless and will reference news that originated from the NYT, Washington Post, or other publication.

If most of the articles at the site you are reading use other publications as original sources, you have a content marketing site on your hands.

What’s great about news sites is that they cover what’s happening around the world – in all countries. A great publication will also include different editorial viewpoints and perspectives to keep it balanced. Sites like Al Jazeera can include news that challenge your perspectives and make you see the world differently.

A fake news site has a theme and a definite point it is trying to get across. There is an underlying “agenda” and strong opinions presented. It seems like every article, no matter what the topic, will lead you to the same opinion in the end. And that’s the goal. The goal isn’t to present news. The goal is to present “news” that supports an agenda.

Gossip columns aren’t news. Respectable news outlets don’t really concern themselves with reporting news that is unsubstantiated and could be perceived as gossip. What’s an example? More recently, the BuzzFeed published intelligence claims that Donald Trump was being blackmailed by Russia (as if that wasn’t bad enough) through recorded activity of him with prostitutes doing a lewd sexual act (I’m not going to go into it here because I think this pushed journalism into a whole new low). The claims couldn’t be fully substantiated so many news outlets wouldn’t report on it or publish it. BuzzFeed released it. Although there may be truth in there somewhere, unless a story is 100% true, releasing it could be seen as fake news, ruin a publication’s reputation and be slanderous.

Note: it was consistent for BuzzFeed to release it because it is not a respectable news source.

If you are reading an article and it seems that you know more about the author’s perspective than you do about what happened, you have fake news. Or if the article has an opinion without facts to back it up, bingo! Fake news.

I just read an article on Huffington Post like this yesterday. It was about Trump thinking that Barak Obama likes him. Now, we don’t know if this is entirely true from the article. We have Trump’s perspective but we don’t have Obama’s perspective. We could assume that Obama doesn’t, but do we know?

I’m not a Trump fan, but to make an opinion about Obama’s perspective without a fact is, well, slanderous and presumptive. it’s great for discussion, but it’s not based on facts.

Real news sites have ads (most publications make their revenue from ads) but they are usually placed somewhere tasteful, away from the news itself. The focus is on the story and the headlines, the true content.

Take a look at CNN, Democracy Now, The Daily Beast, The New York Times. They may use ads, but not in line with the article content (examples to follow below).

Now, take a look at the average content marketing news site, like Trump.news or LiberalAmerica.org. It is riddled with ads. Here’s an article from Breitbart.com. Notice there isn’t original reporting included (it references an article of someone else’s research) and it hits points home for most Breitbart readers regarding white nationalism (it’s fairly severe). In this snippet, notice the ads. The “You Might Like” section is ads. “We recommend” is ads.

News sites get their revenue from subscriptions and other revenue sources. Blog sites are notorious for getting money from ads.

What makes this quality difficult to discuss is that today, almost anyone who has access to WordPress can create a fairly decent site in 30 minutes. Most people are aware of and sensitive to design and UX in general (even hackers and phishers). It is difficult to identify a site that is one of the these content marketing sites vs a real news site. In the past, one could easily say that the design of a content marketing news site would be a simple, non-professional design. That’s not true today. It’s definitely more nuanced.

If you take a look at most serious journalism sites, there are qualities to look for regarding image styles, font usage and white space.

They use a distinct photo treatment for their articles. They also use a complementary serif/sans serif font combination and they have a great use of balanced white space.

Again, balances serif/sans-serif fonts, distinct photo style that focuses on faces and emotional expressions, and a balanced use of modules and white space (different sized modules that are appealing to the eye).

Similar trends (see screenshot above).

There is a finished quality about these sites – a crispness and elegance to the design. There is a simplicity to the look – it’s direct where you know what you need to do on these sites (click on headlines and images as they interest you) and the hero here is the news.

Content marketing for news sites look like a fancy blog that uses a theme.

There are many links to choose from, and although the design is clean, there is a casualness to it. These pages don’t have the elegance that The Daily Beast or Democracy Now have. And there are those pesky ads.

Notice how there isn’t a lot of white space. The site is busy and not well designed. It’s very blocky.

Compared to the other sites, there are huge gaps of whitespace or lots of text. It is pretty inconsistent how the design appears on the page.

One clue for great design and a professional site – everything is in a neat, proportional grid. When text wraps too much out of a grid, it is sloppy. That’s when you can tell non-design experts are involved.

The same is true for Occupy Democrats. See the example below. The design is super simple, not a lot of columns or variation to get attention. Photos seem to be taken from other sources (not original photos or stylized). And notice the right column – all whitespace or ads.

I found an article that lists a number of real news sites.  All of these sites have these qualities:

Before you believe a story you read online, take a quick inventory of where you are reading the story and what’s in it. You may realize that where you were getting your news is really a content marketing site. This is fine if it is referencing sources like Reuters and Associated Press. However, content marketing news sites are not ok if you want to read original reporting and challenge your current worldview.