In 2017, researchers at Stanford ran an experiment that should worry anyone who's confident about their own research skills. They took three groups — professional fact-checkers, PhD historians, and Stanford undergraduates — and gave them the same task: land on an unfamiliar website and figure out, as quickly as possible, whether it could be trusted.
The historians and students were exactly the people you'd expect to be good at this. Historians spend their careers evaluating sources. Stanford undergraduates attend one of the most competitive universities on earth. The researchers said it themselves going in: "We expected them to be experts."
They weren't, not compared to the third group. In one task, participants had to judge which of two organizations was the legitimate medical authority on a topic and which was a fringe group with a hidden agenda. Every single fact-checker got it right, and fast. Historians got it right about half the time. Stanford undergraduates did worse than that — some ended up more convinced by the fringe site, because it simply looked more official.
The difference wasn't knowledge. It was method.
Historians and students did what most of us do: they stayed on the site itself, read its "About" page, checked how professional it looked, scanned its citations. Researchers call this "reading vertically" — going deeper into the one source in front of you.
The fact-checkers did something almost the opposite. Within seconds of landing on an unfamiliar site, they left it. They opened new tabs and searched elsewhere for who runs the site, who funds it, and what other credible sources said about it — before spending any real time evaluating the site's own content. Researchers named this "lateral reading": instead of judging a source from the inside, you judge it from the outside, using the rest of the internet as a cross-check.
This matters because "doing your own research" usually means the vertical version — reading a source closely, checking its footnotes, seeing if the writing seems careful. That instinct feels responsible, but the Stanford study found it's exactly what let a convincingly-designed fringe site fool smart, careful people. A polished layout, a professional-sounding name, and official-looking citations are cheap to fake and expensive to verify from the inside. They're nearly free to check from the outside.
What lateral reading looks like in practice — and it's genuinely fast, often under 30 seconds:
- Before reading deep into an unfamiliar source, open a new tab and search the organization's name plus a neutral term like "who funds" or "criticism."
- Check whether independent, established outlets reference this source the way it presents itself, or describe it differently.
- If you can't find the source mentioned anywhere else at all, that absence is itself useful information — a real, credible organization on a topic that matters usually leaves some trace elsewhere.
"Do your own research" isn't bad advice. It's incomplete advice. The actual skill isn't reading harder — it's knowing to look somewhere else first.
Solitaire FactStack drops one media literacy fact into every game of Klondike solitaire you play — free, ad-supported, and built to make you a little sharper one hand at a time. Play free now →