ERD50
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
I will respectfully suggest that the question itself does not get to heart of the issue, and is maybe a part of the problem. It is a form of logical fallacy, the "appeal to authority".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority
I try not to think in terms of any source as being biased one way or the other (within reason), and I assume they are all biased. And the bias may vary from article to article, or over time - so that's not even reliable.
I read/watch the article. If it is clearly reporting what I know to be fact, fine (2 + 2 = 4). The source doesn't matter.
On more nuanced information, I listen. If it seems important to me, I will take the time/effort to do my own research and find the sources. Nine times out of ten, I'll find the article put a strong slant on it, sometimes clearly out of bias, sometimes clearly out of ignorance.
If I don't have the time/motivation to research it, or can't find sources, I'll ignore it. My experience in digging up sources makes me tend to assume the information as presented was wrong anyhow.
I try to listen to multiple sources, to hear what they are talking about, not so much what they say about it. I'll ignore their view unless/until I can research it.
I've seen some jaw dropping examples of statements taken out of context, or even edited to present something very different from what actually happened. The ones I can think of off hand would probably end up with Porky, though I wish that were not the case. I wish people would look at them for the content and comparison rather than what "side" they were from, but I don't think that will happen. If I find some neutral ones, I'll try to remember to post them.
I hope some recent lawsuits against some media outlets win and receive huge awards. I feel that the media has become very, very dangerous lately, putting "the story" far ahead of some peoples reputations and even safety. They can start a mob incident with some of their reporting, which often turns out to be wrong, and could and should have been verified first. The media need to be held responsible.
-ERD50
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority
I try not to think in terms of any source as being biased one way or the other (within reason), and I assume they are all biased. And the bias may vary from article to article, or over time - so that's not even reliable.
I read/watch the article. If it is clearly reporting what I know to be fact, fine (2 + 2 = 4). The source doesn't matter.
On more nuanced information, I listen. If it seems important to me, I will take the time/effort to do my own research and find the sources. Nine times out of ten, I'll find the article put a strong slant on it, sometimes clearly out of bias, sometimes clearly out of ignorance.
If I don't have the time/motivation to research it, or can't find sources, I'll ignore it. My experience in digging up sources makes me tend to assume the information as presented was wrong anyhow.
I try to listen to multiple sources, to hear what they are talking about, not so much what they say about it. I'll ignore their view unless/until I can research it.
I've seen some jaw dropping examples of statements taken out of context, or even edited to present something very different from what actually happened. The ones I can think of off hand would probably end up with Porky, though I wish that were not the case. I wish people would look at them for the content and comparison rather than what "side" they were from, but I don't think that will happen. If I find some neutral ones, I'll try to remember to post them.
I hope some recent lawsuits against some media outlets win and receive huge awards. I feel that the media has become very, very dangerous lately, putting "the story" far ahead of some peoples reputations and even safety. They can start a mob incident with some of their reporting, which often turns out to be wrong, and could and should have been verified first. The media need to be held responsible.
-ERD50