Independent perspectives. Established 2026.
Our standardsCorrectionsRSS feed ↗

PUBLIC LIFE.
CLEARLY EXPLAINED.

Addicting Info.

Follow your curiosity

What would you like to understand?

A few places to start.

ExplainerHow SNAP works: who qualifies for food stamps and what they getA plain-language guide to SNAP eligibility, the income tests, how benefits are calculated, what you can buy and the most common myths.ExplainerCan the government take away your U.S. citizenship?What the Constitution and the Supreme Court say about losing citizenship, how denaturalization works, and what the proposed Enemy Expatriation Act would have changed.ExplainerSeparation of church and state, explainedWhat the First Amendment’s religion clauses say, where the phrase “wall of separation” comes from, and how the Supreme Court’s approach has changed.ExplainerHow to spot a hyperpartisan headline (using this domain’s own past as the example)Seven checks for a viral political headline, with a real case study: a 2016 headline from the former Addicting Info that BuzzFeed News flagged.ExplainerAstroturfing and paid commenters: how fake grassroots campaigns workWhat astroturfing is, documented examples from fake FCC comments to state troll farms, and the signs of a coordinated campaign.

Press Esc to close.

Media literacy / Explainer

How to spot a hyperpartisan headline (using this domain’s own past as the example)

Seven checks for a viral political headline, with a real case study: a 2016 headline from the former Addicting Info that BuzzFeed News flagged.

By the Addicting Info editorsPublished October 14, 2026Reviewed October 14, 20262 min read

This domain used to belong to a hyperpartisan news site. In 2016, BuzzFeed News analyzed posts from six highly partisan Facebook pages, three on the left and three on the right, and the former Addicting Info was one of them. The study found false or misleading content on both sides, with more on the right-leaning pages. It is a useful starting point for anyone who wants to read political news without being steered by it.

The case study

One example in the BuzzFeed analysis was a headline that read “Trump Loses Support Of Police Union After Saying Tulsa Shooting Cop ‘Choked’ (VIDEO).” The reviewers noted that the story didn’t support the headline’s claim. The underlying event was real. The headline stretched it into something that wasn’t, and the label “(VIDEO)” invited readers to share before reading. The original page is in our archive record.

Seven checks before you share

  1. Does the story say what the headline says? Read past the first paragraph. Hyperpartisan headlines often add a conclusion the article never backs up.
  2. Find the primary source. If the story is about a bill, read the bill on congress.gov or your state legislature’s site. If it’s about a quote, find the video or transcript.
  3. Check the date. Old stories get recirculated as if they were new, especially after an election or a disaster.
  4. Watch for emotion words. “Destroys,” “slams,” “you won’t believe” and all-caps labels like “(VIDEO)” or “(IMAGE)” are built for shares, not accuracy.
  5. Look for independent confirmation. If only outlets from one side are reporting it, wait. Real news gets picked up across the spectrum.
  6. Distinguish “introduced” from “passed.” Thousands of bills are introduced every year and most never get a vote. See how a bill becomes law.
  7. Notice your own reaction. If a headline confirms exactly what you already believed about the other side, that is the moment to slow down.

Our claim checklist turns these steps into a short worksheet you can use on any post.

Why both sides do it

Partisan pages are rewarded by engagement, and outrage drives engagement. The incentives are the same whatever the politics. Reading critically is not about distrusting one side; it is about checking the claim in front of you.

Spotted an error? See our corrections policy.

Continue exploring media literacy

More on media literacy

All media literacy →