After School: CASE 12
Deepfakes and provenance
1: STORY
A principal appears on screen, announcing a new policy. The setting looks familiar, the clip moves naturally, and the repost sounds confident. In this fictional case, students are being asked to change their understanding of a school rule based on that clip. Recognizing the person and place makes the message feel settled before anyone checks the sound.
The original recording changes the question. It shows the same visible event, but its audio differs from the viral version. That means “real or fake?” is too blunt a question for this evidence. The footage and the soundtrack need separate examination. Authentic images can carry a message that was never part of the recording.
The school’s announcement archive provides a second check. It contains no announcement matching the viral audio, and the current policy notice says something different. This is stronger than deciding from a strange facial movement or a comment section. You can compare both the altered media and the claim about school policy with records closer to their origins.
A useful correction should travel back through the same conversation without repeating the false message as its headline. State what changed, point to the original and current notice, and leave the editor’s identity unresolved. You can correct a claim without knowing who made the first altered copy or proving why anyone shared it.
2: EVIDENCE
These are NPW practice documents. Real-world sources are credited separately below.
SOURCE A — Original video
NPW practice record. Same visible event as viral clip, but original audio differs.
What it establishes: Shows video footage may be authentic while audio was altered.
Question while reading: Why is “the video is fake” imprecise?
SOURCE B — Viral repost
NPW practice document. Audio claims the principal announced a policy that does not appear in original.
What it establishes: Shows altered message.
Question while reading: What should a correction name specifically?
SOURCE C — Official announcement archive
NPW practice document. No announcement matching the viral audio; current policy notice says something different.
What it establishes: Provides independent institutional record.
Question while reading: What remains unknown about who altered the audio?
Compare Source A and Source B at the message level: the visible event matches, while the audio and claimed announcement do not. This supports identifying an altered soundtrack. The receipts do not identify a software tool, the first uploader, or a motive, so none belongs in a factual correction.
Source C checks the separate policy claim. Its current notice conflicts with the repost, providing institutional corroboration alongside the original video. Absence from an archive alone would be a weaker basis for declaring that nothing was ever said. Here, the comparison with Source A gives the correction additional support.
3: PRACTICE
A and B establish the audio mismatch, while C contradicts the repost’s policy claim. The receipts neither establish a policy change between recordings nor identify who edited the audio.
Responses stay in this browser. Use “Download my notes” to keep a copy.
4: TASK
Build a verification chain and draft a correction. Include one clear claim or question, at least two source references, one statement of uncertainty/scope, the person or office with relevant authority, and one realistic next step.
Verification chain: compare the repost (B) with the original recording (A), then check the current policy notice in the official archive (C). Correction: “The circulating clip uses footage from a real event, but its audio differs from the original. The policy announcement in the repost is not supported by that recording, and the current school notice says something different. Please use the original and official notice when checking the rule.” We do not know who altered the sound. I would ask the school office responsible for announcements to confirm the current notice and share this correction where the repost circulated.
Without A, what could C still establish, and which part of the correction would need qualifying?
A specific teen fact-check of an imitation celebrity account. The linked case includes handouts and teacher notes.
Which evidence establishes the account's identity independently of whether the face looks convincing?
Build an identity-verification ladder: account description, original uploader, corroborating official account and independent reporting. Treat visual glitches as weak clues, never a reliable 2026 detection test.
Make: A verification ladder with confidence levels and an unresolved question.
Video URL verified from the PBS embed. YouTube playback/captions not tested. The case page can supply the source trail if playback fails.
A 2026 Spanish-language verification tracing a song falsely attributed to Rosalía to its uploader's own description and synthetic-content label. This is the fact-checker's original investigation, not the artist's release.
What does the uploader's own description establish that listening to the voice alone cannot?
Students build a bilingual attribution card distinguishing named artist, uploader, stated use of AI and verification outcome. Trace the evidence before discussing whether the audio sounds convincing.
Make: A Spanish or English correction card with a source trail.
Public text includes evidence and an archived original-post link. Readable without playing the song. Do not reproduce lyrics or treat the imitation as an authentic Rosalía recording.
45–55 min core, 80–100 min full
| Criterion | Beginning | Developing | Strong | Advanced |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Accuracy & scope | Repeats claim. | Mostly accurate; scope incomplete. | Accurate and properly scoped. | Accurate, scoped, and explicit about uncertainty. |
| Evidence | Little or unrelated. | Relevant source, sometimes overstated. | Explains what sources establish. | Compares sources and limits. |
| Authority | Names actor without role. | Plausible authority. | Explains who decides and why. | Maps proposal, approval, implementation, review. |
| Communication | Vague or audience-mismatched. | Main point understandable. | Clear, specific, audience-aware. | Clear, accessible, precise, well-qualified. |
