  This research investigates the extent of misinformation in certain
journalistic articles by introducing a novel measurement tool to assess the
degrees of falsity. It aims to measure misinformation using two metrics
(concealment and overstatement) to explore how information is interpreted as
false. This should help examine how articles containing partly true and partly
false information can potentially harm readers, as they are more challenging to
identify than completely fabricated information. In this study, the full story
provided by the fact-checking website serves as a standardized source of
information for comparing differences between fake and real news. The result
suggests that false news has greater concealment and overstatement, due to
longer and more complex new stories being shortened and ambiguously phrased.
While there are no major distinctions among categories of politics science and
civics, it demonstrates that misinformation lacks crucial details while
simultaneously containing more redundant words. Hence, news articles containing
partial falsity, categorized as misinformation, can deceive inattentive readers
who lack background knowledge. Hopefully, this approach instigates future
fact-checkers, journalists, and the readers to secure high quality articles for
a resilient information environment.
