Trust is what you give to your friends and family, not a suit telling you things on TV.
Do not trust the news. Listen to the news, but remain skeptical. If it’s important, verify it. Every story has more than one side to it, and the truth is somewhere in the middle.
You can’t trust the news. You have to take in multiple sources of information and read between the lines applying logic. This was always the case, it’s just more obvious now.
You don’t. Use the news to know what topics you should be researching for yourself using the official documents involved, scientific papers, and critical thinking.
Just cross-reference twelve sources, reverse-engineer their funding, decipher the biases of every journalist involved, read three academic papers before breakfast, analyze the political affiliations of every editorial board member, fact-check the fact-checkers, cross-check with historical data, consult the ‘reliable’ conspiracy theorists for balance, and maybe…just maybe…you’ll be close to the truth by lunchtime.
As they say, all news comes via humans so there’s bias but some outlets try hard to keep a balance. AP, Reuters, BBC, NPR. If stories conflict among those then you can choose to try to get to the root of the issue if it’s that important to you. Even then, humans will provide that info.
I like to remember something I heard or read and keep track of it over time to see if time changes what I was told. I do keep in mind that I’m human and I too have all sorts of biases.
Start with AP or Reuters. They’re pretty much the standard in news sourcing. Then for controversial issues, look up a few sources. Also, accept that maybe you just don’t know for sure, be cautious with your own assertions. Sometimes even people trying their best to report the truth just get facts wrong.
I read Tangle. They present topics from different points of view. I listen to NPR and if a topic interests me I’ll look at different resources, Reuters, AP, BBC.
MSM… and I know what it sounds like saying that… but the truth is that cross-referencing MSM is the best you can do. Podcaster, YouTubers and other internet extraordinaires, all watch the MSM and then give their take… So, they are secondhand MSM… No thank you! I’ll watch for myself, apply some critical thinking and develop my own opinions and views.
I pay attention to interviews. When they interview politicians and world leaders, and you can listen to what they have to say in FULL context, it’s hard to fake that. After the interview, when they want to “analyze” what was said, is usually a good time to change the channel, because that’s when the mind fucking comes. Then, as a check on the news, I try to gauge the reaction by professionals and subject matter experts. I pay attention to actions… For example, if politicians are on the news protesting vaccines and then I see they got vaccinated a few days later on another network, it raises a red flag.
Reddit is actually a pretty decent source because you can read and interact with people who have knowledge on a personal level. I’m not saying to form your opinion solely based on what some dude on reddit says, but it’s nice to read real accounts (make sure they’re real) to go along with news stories.
A good indicator that you’re listening to bullshit is if the host or news anchor is downright calling one half of the political spectrum idiots and nutjobs, and says they hate and want to purposely sabotage the country. I don’t know how people take those people seriously, but they do…
It’s a shame that you have to watch the news knowing that they are biased, some lean left some lean right, and some of it is downright propaganda anymore… but you have to know, as you watch that they are trying to sway your opinion, and you have to constantly wonder what story they are not telling you, that is contrary to the narrative they are trying to sell.
So I have found that actually reading the articles and following the sources shows you the nuance. A lot of news is interpretation of a couple of sources. You look past the headlines and you find that rarely anything is black and white and this goes for both sides, although you are going to find more egregious spin on one side.
Read news from various sources, watch videos or read transcripts of what was actually said. Use your good judgment by looking for facts vs. subjective language in articles.
Draw your own conclusions. I
trust legitimate news outlets like AP, Reuters, CBS, BBC,and CNN et al for factual reports. CNN in particular has more spin, but an opinion piece is easily differentiated from a non-subjective article.
As much as it hurt, I signed up for trump’s Facebook and X. I needed to read messages to see if the outrageous posts were true. A screenshot of a tweet or Facebook post is easily manipulated.
Reddit posts are sometimes misleading, and may link to news sources I do not trust. I learned that I can’t just read my local news station’s website and be informed.
I avoid most US based news media. Even non-far-right media still lets the far-right media drive the narrative – they faced years of “BIAS!!!” screaming whenever they pushed back so now they just let the far-right talking heads come on and spin things with not nearly enough pushback or even calling out their blatant lies.
Get perspectives from different sides and keep an open mind – that way you’re not stuck in a bubble
Don’t have time to follow a bunch of different news?
I highly recommend readtangle.com
You get a short newsletter with the issue of the day, the left and right opinions on it and in my view an open minded non-partisan opinion from the editor
The PBS Newshour is dry and factual. That’s how news should be.
Also get your info from multiple sources. Because Trump has banned AP from White House briefings (illegal, but hey, it’s Trump, so laws don’t apply), I’d do Reuters, too, plus the NY Times and WSJ, both of which have some bias but one is left and one leans right.
Variety of sources+ critical thinking is what you need to aim for.
AP, Reuters, BBC and NPR are good for national/international news. For local news, if you’re fortunate enough to live somewhere with either an independent local newspaper or a news org founded by laid-off/quit newspaper reporters (think Texas Tribune, Oaklandside/Berkeleyside or S.F. Standard), use those, too.
You want to read several reputable news sources. Be careful on YouTube — many grifters!
From a live event you attend in person and record the event from start to finish, rewatch video the next day and ponder the experience for at least 50 hours, write or type your thoughts, and that’s the only available trustworthy news source.
This might be controversial but since Covid, Al Jazera had actually balanced reporting for most areas of the western world. If I really want to know what is going on I usually read one from my country, one from the country the news is about and one from a source in opposition of the article and piece it together. Usually the truth lies somewhere in the middle.
You need to cross verify. Wikipedia is a great starting place for anything involves well known figures or long running disputes. It will give you broad strokes to help contextualize and a list of sources of do further research.
For video/broadcasting media – you have to identify a couple of things:
Is it acting as a news source, opinion piece, or entertainment? Those are held to different standards when it comes to the truthfulness of their “reporting” – most Fox News shows, the daily show, last weekend tonight, etc are entertainment. That doesn’t mean the info presented is wrong just that it’s motivated by needing to be entertaining.
Have they been sued for libel/defamation? Did they win or lose? Why? John Oliver’s won because what he said was true, when Fox News won on the argument that no reasonable would believe what they say is news (they’ve also lost big suits because they knowingly lied)
Who are their sources? And what’s the source’s motivation? Are their experts actual experts on the topic or just who they could pay to agree with them?
Is their reporting consistent with known and established facts? Are other reputable sources available to verify?
How do they handle it when they are wrong? Because everyone eventually is.
Look for independent sources of endorsements, awards, etc.
For print/internet:
Is it an opinion piece? Is it a sponsored piece? If so what’s their goal with the piece?
What are their sources? Has their info been verified by multiple sources?
Who owns them and what do they care about? Think bezos and huff post. Or Murdock and Fox News etc.
Is what they’re reporting being picked up by other media? Epstein was indicted because of the work of a local reporter – when they’re right people notice.
This doesn’t always apply, but what did they risk to publish it? Snowden has spent over a decade in exile, the reporters who broke the Catholic molestation story faced excommunication, #metoo risked people’s careers and future. If the person would be better of if what they were saying was a lie, it’s worth looking into.
For academic/scientific sources:
Is it a peer reviewed study published in a respected journal?
Is the author a subject matter expert?
Who funded the research? Who benefits from conclusion?
Is the experiment repeatable? Were all the relevant variables accounted for? Was their methodology sound?
What was their actual conclusion – not just the headline version
TLDR; you have to actually do the work to get good information. It’s honestly better to be uninformed than misinformed. Learning is based on the quality of the questions you.
You can’t, you have to consume the same story from multiple different sources and compare them against one another according to whichever bias you believe they have.
Comments
Why in the world would you trust the news?
Trust is what you give to your friends and family, not a suit telling you things on TV.
Do not trust the news. Listen to the news, but remain skeptical. If it’s important, verify it. Every story has more than one side to it, and the truth is somewhere in the middle.
You can’t trust the news. You have to take in multiple sources of information and read between the lines applying logic. This was always the case, it’s just more obvious now.
You don’t. Use the news to know what topics you should be researching for yourself using the official documents involved, scientific papers, and critical thinking.
Just cross-reference twelve sources, reverse-engineer their funding, decipher the biases of every journalist involved, read three academic papers before breakfast, analyze the political affiliations of every editorial board member, fact-check the fact-checkers, cross-check with historical data, consult the ‘reliable’ conspiracy theorists for balance, and maybe…just maybe…you’ll be close to the truth by lunchtime.
I believe it’s all centrally controlled anyways.
As they say, all news comes via humans so there’s bias but some outlets try hard to keep a balance. AP, Reuters, BBC, NPR. If stories conflict among those then you can choose to try to get to the root of the issue if it’s that important to you. Even then, humans will provide that info.
I like to remember something I heard or read and keep track of it over time to see if time changes what I was told. I do keep in mind that I’m human and I too have all sorts of biases.
Start with AP or Reuters. They’re pretty much the standard in news sourcing. Then for controversial issues, look up a few sources. Also, accept that maybe you just don’t know for sure, be cautious with your own assertions. Sometimes even people trying their best to report the truth just get facts wrong.
National news is usually slanted depending on that particular outlet’s political leanings. And it’s hard to truly trust they’re being truthful.
But local news is still mostly nonpartisan. And your local tv station, npr station or newspaper’s website are worth considering for local news.
Do your own research.
multiple sources, account for biases, and aim for somewhere in the middle
I read Tangle. They present topics from different points of view. I listen to NPR and if a topic interests me I’ll look at different resources, Reuters, AP, BBC.
I live in the US, but I like to read BBC and Tagesschau.
MSM… and I know what it sounds like saying that… but the truth is that cross-referencing MSM is the best you can do. Podcaster, YouTubers and other internet extraordinaires, all watch the MSM and then give their take… So, they are secondhand MSM… No thank you! I’ll watch for myself, apply some critical thinking and develop my own opinions and views.
I pay attention to interviews. When they interview politicians and world leaders, and you can listen to what they have to say in FULL context, it’s hard to fake that. After the interview, when they want to “analyze” what was said, is usually a good time to change the channel, because that’s when the mind fucking comes. Then, as a check on the news, I try to gauge the reaction by professionals and subject matter experts. I pay attention to actions… For example, if politicians are on the news protesting vaccines and then I see they got vaccinated a few days later on another network, it raises a red flag.
Reddit is actually a pretty decent source because you can read and interact with people who have knowledge on a personal level. I’m not saying to form your opinion solely based on what some dude on reddit says, but it’s nice to read real accounts (make sure they’re real) to go along with news stories.
A good indicator that you’re listening to bullshit is if the host or news anchor is downright calling one half of the political spectrum idiots and nutjobs, and says they hate and want to purposely sabotage the country. I don’t know how people take those people seriously, but they do…
It’s a shame that you have to watch the news knowing that they are biased, some lean left some lean right, and some of it is downright propaganda anymore… but you have to know, as you watch that they are trying to sway your opinion, and you have to constantly wonder what story they are not telling you, that is contrary to the narrative they are trying to sell.
Just listen to what is said yourself rather than listening to what others say about the things that are said. Make up your own mind from there.
Every article written has a bias. Always has, always will.
CSPAN.
I find reading articles about my country that were written outside my country to be more accurate. I also avoid any 24 hour news sites.
I aggregate info from multiple sources honestly. But still have to be careful. I find AP and Reuters good and neutral most times
Allsides.com is decent in helping form a cohesive story from news.
So I have found that actually reading the articles and following the sources shows you the nuance. A lot of news is interpretation of a couple of sources. You look past the headlines and you find that rarely anything is black and white and this goes for both sides, although you are going to find more egregious spin on one side.
AP. It’s where everyone else buys their news.
I like https://ground.news they show the same story from multiple news agencies side-by-side. You can see how each side frames the story.
Keep digging and asking questions. The more reliable news sources will have much more detail. Its mentally draining sometimes.
Imagine the reaction of your parents or grandparents if you told them that Walter Cronkite was telling them a version of the news.
Read news from various sources, watch videos or read transcripts of what was actually said. Use your good judgment by looking for facts vs. subjective language in articles.
Draw your own conclusions. I
trust legitimate news outlets like AP, Reuters, CBS, BBC,and CNN et al for factual reports. CNN in particular has more spin, but an opinion piece is easily differentiated from a non-subjective article.
As much as it hurt, I signed up for trump’s Facebook and X. I needed to read messages to see if the outrageous posts were true. A screenshot of a tweet or Facebook post is easily manipulated.
Reddit posts are sometimes misleading, and may link to news sources I do not trust. I learned that I can’t just read my local news station’s website and be informed.
Look to foreign news sources. Domestic media rarely portrays its own government impartially.
maybe groundnews?
I avoid most US based news media. Even non-far-right media still lets the far-right media drive the narrative – they faced years of “BIAS!!!” screaming whenever they pushed back so now they just let the far-right talking heads come on and spin things with not nearly enough pushback or even calling out their blatant lies.
Get perspectives from different sides and keep an open mind – that way you’re not stuck in a bubble
Don’t have time to follow a bunch of different news?
I highly recommend readtangle.com
You get a short newsletter with the issue of the day, the left and right opinions on it and in my view an open minded non-partisan opinion from the editor
NPR is the only one i somewhat trust. Reuters is a close second. Other than that I don’t trust any media outlet. It’s like Hollywood acting.
The PBS Newshour is dry and factual. That’s how news should be.
Also get your info from multiple sources. Because Trump has banned AP from White House briefings (illegal, but hey, it’s Trump, so laws don’t apply), I’d do Reuters, too, plus the NY Times and WSJ, both of which have some bias but one is left and one leans right.
Variety of sources+ critical thinking is what you need to aim for.
AP, Reuters, BBC and NPR are good for national/international news. For local news, if you’re fortunate enough to live somewhere with either an independent local newspaper or a news org founded by laid-off/quit newspaper reporters (think Texas Tribune, Oaklandside/Berkeleyside or S.F. Standard), use those, too.
You want to read several reputable news sources. Be careful on YouTube — many grifters!
From a live event you attend in person and record the event from start to finish, rewatch video the next day and ponder the experience for at least 50 hours, write or type your thoughts, and that’s the only available trustworthy news source.
This might be controversial but since Covid, Al Jazera had actually balanced reporting for most areas of the western world. If I really want to know what is going on I usually read one from my country, one from the country the news is about and one from a source in opposition of the article and piece it together. Usually the truth lies somewhere in the middle.
Follow both sides, the truth is somewhere in the middle
Straight Arrow News. Short and sweet they state things and don’t bring in “experts from X” to deliver some commentary
Do you have a window? Open it.
No, seriously, I just don’t watch the news, instead i read from several papers and make up my mind. Usually it’s all bullshit.
You need to cross verify. Wikipedia is a great starting place for anything involves well known figures or long running disputes. It will give you broad strokes to help contextualize and a list of sources of do further research.
For video/broadcasting media – you have to identify a couple of things:
Is it acting as a news source, opinion piece, or entertainment? Those are held to different standards when it comes to the truthfulness of their “reporting” – most Fox News shows, the daily show, last weekend tonight, etc are entertainment. That doesn’t mean the info presented is wrong just that it’s motivated by needing to be entertaining.
Have they been sued for libel/defamation? Did they win or lose? Why? John Oliver’s won because what he said was true, when Fox News won on the argument that no reasonable would believe what they say is news (they’ve also lost big suits because they knowingly lied)
Who are their sources? And what’s the source’s motivation? Are their experts actual experts on the topic or just who they could pay to agree with them?
Is their reporting consistent with known and established facts? Are other reputable sources available to verify?
How do they handle it when they are wrong? Because everyone eventually is.
Look for independent sources of endorsements, awards, etc.
For print/internet:
Is it an opinion piece? Is it a sponsored piece? If so what’s their goal with the piece?
What are their sources? Has their info been verified by multiple sources?
Who owns them and what do they care about? Think bezos and huff post. Or Murdock and Fox News etc.
Is what they’re reporting being picked up by other media? Epstein was indicted because of the work of a local reporter – when they’re right people notice.
This doesn’t always apply, but what did they risk to publish it? Snowden has spent over a decade in exile, the reporters who broke the Catholic molestation story faced excommunication, #metoo risked people’s careers and future. If the person would be better of if what they were saying was a lie, it’s worth looking into.
For academic/scientific sources:
Is it a peer reviewed study published in a respected journal?
Is the author a subject matter expert?
Who funded the research? Who benefits from conclusion?
Is the experiment repeatable? Were all the relevant variables accounted for? Was their methodology sound?
What was their actual conclusion – not just the headline version
TLDR; you have to actually do the work to get good information. It’s honestly better to be uninformed than misinformed. Learning is based on the quality of the questions you.
You can’t, you have to consume the same story from multiple different sources and compare them against one another according to whichever bias you believe they have.