How to Check a “Scam News” Claim, Image, or Screenshot
About this check
If you just saw a claim labeled “scam news,” start with one specific check: what exactly is being claimed, and what evidence supports it? A finished answer should not stop at “real” or “fake.” It should identify the claim, show the sources behind the conclusion, and acknowledge when the available evidence cannot settle it.
The manual method
1. Separate the claim from the post.
Write down the exact statement you are trying to verify. A post may contain several claims, a headline may imply more than it says, and a screenshot may omit the surrounding context. Check one claim at a time rather than treating the entire post as a single fact.
2. Search the exact wording.
Put distinctive phrases from the claim in quotation marks and search them. Try the main words without the quotation marks as well. Look for reporting, official statements, original documents, or other sources that address the same event or statement.
3. Check who published the information.
Look beyond a headline or repost. Identify the publication, account, organization, or person making the claim. Then compare the claim with the source it cites, if any. A screenshot that appears to come from a news outlet is not the same as the outlet’s current page, and a caption is not proof of what an image shows.
4. Compare independent evidence.
Check whether different sources are describing the same facts or merely repeating the same post. Pay attention to dates, names, locations, quotations, and whether the material actually addresses the claim you wrote down. If a source is discussing a different event, it does not settle the claim in front of you.
5. Inspect images and screenshots separately.
For an image, search for earlier appearances and compare the surrounding context. For a screenshot, verify the text, date, account, page, and link shown in it where possible. Cropping, missing context, and altered text can change what a reader thinks the image proves.
6. State the result with the evidence attached.
A useful answer names the claim, gives the conclusion, and points to any sources that support it. If the sources conflict or do not provide enough evidence, say that the claim is unresolved instead of forcing a yes-or-no answer.
Where manual checking stops working
Manual checking is useful when the wording is clear and the relevant sources are easy to find. It becomes less dependable when the claim is buried in a voice message, the evidence is spread across many pages, a screenshot is the only version available, or the available sources do not settle the question. Searching can also show that a phrase is circulating without showing whether it is true.
That boundary matters. A lack of search results is not automatically proof that a claim is false, and a large number of reposts is not proof that it is true. The responsible result may be inconclusive.
A way to check with VOM
VOM accepts voice input for submitting a claim to verify. It verifies claims using real-time web search and shows any sources the check found. Its response includes a verdict, a confidence score, and any sources the check found. The verdict can be true, false, or inconclusive, so a claim the evidence cannot settle is reported as inconclusive rather than forced into a yes-or-no answer.
For images, VOM assesses an uploaded image as likely authentic, likely AI-generated, or unverifiable. It also reads the text inside a screenshot, so a forwarded image can be checked without retyping it.
VOM also offers local, world, and trending feeds of circulating claims. It answers in the language the person is using across its eight supported languages. Beyond verification, it holds natural back-and-forth conversations for everyday questions, learning, brainstorming, writing, and planning, and it can turn a written idea into a generated image.
The useful distinction is simple: manual checking gives you a process for tracing a claim yourself; VOM returns a verdict, confidence score, and cited sources, while preserving an inconclusive result when the evidence does not support a definite answer.