Digital Source Criticism (DSC) is a practical method for carefully investigating online sources and the information they provide. It is based on the broader concept of Source Criticism, which Nordic journalists commonly practice to evaluate the credibility of sources. However, source criticism originally came from the work of the German historian Leopold von Ranke, who developed the method to assess the reliability of historical sources. 

Over time, this method spread from historiography to other fields, such as biblical studies and library and information sciences. In the English-speaking world, source criticism usually refers to evaluating information found in historical and religious texts. Meanwhile, in the Nordic countries, media professionals adopted source criticism as a practical tool for investigating journalistic sources and verifying the information they provide.

According to Steensen et al. (2022), there are at least two good reasons for advancing source criticism as an approach while dealing with the task of checking the credibility of information:

1. Source criticism is essential for addressing the growing complexity of how knowledge is produced.
2. As the digital age brings new challenges, such as misinformation and changing media landscapes, it’s crucial to rethink how source criticism works, particularly regarding digital sources and the underlying systems that support them.

As Kalsnes (2023) writes, “In practice, by using source criticism, we can determine whether the information is probable, trustworthy, credible, and rooted in reality” (p.54). In its basic understanding, when assessing a source’s trustworthiness, it is advisable to consider who is the source of information, when the information was published, whether the information is a firsthand account of the events it describes, whether facts and opinions are clearly distinguishable or whether the information mixes factual accounts with value judgments.

In a more nuanced approach, as this handbook advocates, source criticism, be it about digitally spread information or not, is based on six core principles:

• Tendency—All sources and source materials have tendencies, no matter how reliable or accurate they seem. The source’s perspective influences these tendencies, as does the situation in which the source material was created, the larger social and cultural background, and possibly the technology used to produce it.
• Interpretation—All source materials contain interpretations and need to be interpreted and reinterpreted by comparing them with other sources, other materials, and changing situations.
• Duality—It is important to recognize and analyze both the form and the content of information to understand how a source’s perspective, origin, and social and cultural context, and the means and context of information distribution, influence the material.
• Relations – All sources and materials are connected to other sources. These connections are vital for digital sources, which are also influenced by the technology used to create them.
• Omission—It’s just as important to analyze what a source leaves out as it is to study what it includes. This includes considering whether anything was left out due to manipulation of the information.
• Self-assessment—Journalists report information, and often, they are also information sources. Journalists create materials that should be examined just as carefully as any other type of source.

A hermeneutic view on the relationship between news and truth theoretically supports the six principles of source criticism. Hermeneutics studies how we interpret and understand texts, ideas, or events. By looking at context, language, and perspective, hermeneutics helps us uncover more profound interpretations beyond the surface level of information. Modern source criticism was greatly influenced by the German philosopher Hans-Georg Gadamer and his book on hermeneutics, Truth and Method, published in 1960. Gadamer believed that truth in human and social life isn’t fixed or objective. Instead, it changes as we continually interpret and reinterpret the information we have. 

Our notion of truth is greatly influenced by what Gadamar called our “horizon of understanding” – the way we view the world, the cultural and social perspectives that shape this worldview, and the immediate surroundings that constitute the context for our perspectives. Horizons of understanding create tendencies – perspectives, and interests that influence source material.

The dominant approach within the journalistic practice of assessing information sources is the discourse about verification. Famously, Kovac and Rosensteal (2005) even called journalism “a discipline of verification.”  However, this approach primarily relies on a positivistic view of knowledge production.

What do we mean by this? Positivism is the philosophical approach to which knowledge should come from observable facts and evidence rather than personal beliefs or opinions. It emphasizes scientific methods and data to understand the world, focusing on things that can be measured and proven rather than speculation or theories. Thus, journalism’s traditional understanding of information verification originates from the positivistic tradition, which believes that information can be verified or refuted and facts can be clearly demarcated from opinions and interpretations.

On the other spectrum of the positivist approach is the hermeneutic or interpretative approach to knowledge production. According to this standpoint, knowledge only exists within the context of origin. Hence, it gets affected by the origin of the information, context, originator, or source. To put it simply, who creates information, when, where, and with what purpose affects what is disseminated. 

Thus, the source and the source material should be distinguished. The source can be a human, an institution, or, in today’s technologically advanced world, a machine, be it software or hardware (such as Chat GPT and other conversational AI models, or voice assistant devices such as Apple’s HomePod, Amazon’s Alexa, and Google Nests). The source material refers to any informational content in any modality, be it text, image, audio video, or a combination.

To a certain degree, journalists are constantly engaged in source criticism. However, the traditional approach would not involve being transparent about this process because journalistic products would not continually elaborate on the tendencies of the sources or the process of interpretation that took place either with creating a source material or while using the material within the news story. Embracing source criticism means letting go of the belief that most facts can be fully proven or disproven. Instead, journalists can better address the challenges of traditional fact-checking methods by being open about this uncertainty and careful in how they present knowledge while also highlighting the tendencies of key sources.

This brings us to today´s information ecosystems dominated by digital means of creating, disseminating, and consuming information. The digital transformation of the news landscape affected t how source criticism is practiced. As Kalsnes (2024) notes, “Digital information and sources have other qualities and characteristics than what is typical for analog information” (p.61). Hence, digital source criticism expands traditional source evaluation methods by recognizing that digital sources require new questions about their origin and materiality. 

The shift changes the way we assess truth and reliability of information. While the goal remains to identify trustworthy sources, digital environments entail a broader and more complex set of sources and infrastructures. Moreover, there are more ways in which information can be modified even after it has been published or manipulated intentionally or unintentionally.

Kalsnes (2024) highlights four key components that require special attention in digital source criticism: source, information, context, and technology. While these components largely align with traditional approaches to source criticism, there is greater emphasis on technology, which “might impact how a source or a piece of information is presented, amplified, or hidden” (Kalsnes, 2024, p.60). As the case studies in this handbook demonstrate, technology is not a neutral tool for conveying information. It can deliberately be misused to create misleading content or distort reality entirely. Therefore, when conducting digital source criticism, it is crucial to carefully consider the technological aspects of the information being evaluated.

Last but not least, it is important to recognize that someone who is conducting digital source criticism to produce and share news is about to become yet another source of information. Hence, all the precautions concerning other sources of information and source materials they produce also apply to journalists and communication workers. Accordingly, the temporal and geographical contexts you exist in, as well as your identity, professional background, and value systems, can affect the way you interpret different sources and source materials and their tendencies.

Accordingly, DSC requires adopting a reflective attitude not only toward the sources and source materials but also toward the process of source criticism itself. In this regard, Steensen et al. (2022) highlight three normative suggestions for engaging in source criticism, whether dealing with digital sources, source materials, or their analog counterparts:

• Make truth-claims with caution and humility: When presenting your conclusions or claims as truth, do so carefully and with humility. Acknowledge that your perspective might be limited or influenced by certain factors, and avoid being overly confident in your assertions.
• Be transparent in your interpretations: Clearly explain how you arrived at your conclusions. Make your reasoning, methods, and thought process visible so others can understand how you interpreted the data or information. This allows your audience to see the logic behind your conclusions.
• Apply self-reflection when making truth claims: Regularly reflect on your assumptions, biases, and thought processes when presenting something as true. This means being aware of how your perspective might affect your conclusions and being open to revising them if needed.

Read more about digital source criticism

• Steen Steensen, Valerie Belair-Gagnon, Lucas Graves, Bente Kalsnes & Oscar Westlund (2022) Journalism and Source Criticism. Revised Approaches to Assessing Truth-Claims, Journalism Studies, 23:16, 2119-2137, DOI: 10.1080/1461670X.2022.2140446
• Kalsnes, Bente (2024). Introducing Digital Source Criticism: A method for tackling fake news and disinformation. In The Routledge Handbook of Discourse and Disinformation (pp. 52-63). Routledge.
• Grut, Ståle (2021). Digital kildekritikk. Gyldendal Norsk Forlag.
• Grut, Ståle (2024). Evaluating digital sources in journalism: An introduction to digital source criticism. Routledge.
• Allern, Sigurd. (2018). Journalistikk og kildekritisk analyse. Oslo: Cappelen Damm Akademisk.
• Caputo, John D. (2018). Hermeneutics: Facts and interpretation in the age of information. Pelican, an imprint of Penguin Books.

The image is generated by SCAM using Midjourney