What if they simply omit key pieces of information? Lies of omission, instead of a statement of falsehood.
As a way of example, if there were a hypothetical murder case where camera footage was shown in court that demonstrated the accused was not the murderer. Say one outlet reported on the existence of the video, while another simply … didn’t mention it.
It depends on the article. For omission it’s harder for me to detect, I mostly prioritize whether or not the article is spreading falsehoods. A lot of right leaning websites (as well as left-wing independent media) will include links or embeds to where they got their information from. In this article, for example, their source for the pictures in the article comes directly from the NYPD’s X account, which is embedded in the article:
In many instances of bigger stories, they will include details that I’ve seen spread by other outlets like the AP or CNN. I generally don’t have time to chase down every claim, which is why I encourage others to point out things that are wrong in the articles if they happen to notice something, but a red flag I look out for is charged language on both left and right wing articles. Especially on the right, as a right leaning source like TheBlaze is more likely to follow the standard conventions of a hard news source when writing their headlines than something like RawStory so it makes bias a bit more unexpected.
Linking breitbart is incredibly cringe
More cringe than writing this comment twice on a crosspost?
Doesn’t show as a cross post
You are knowingly spreading steve bannon white nationalist hate by linking that trash
If there’s something false in the article I’ll take it down. If not, I don’t care.
What if they simply omit key pieces of information? Lies of omission, instead of a statement of falsehood.
As a way of example, if there were a hypothetical murder case where camera footage was shown in court that demonstrated the accused was not the murderer. Say one outlet reported on the existence of the video, while another simply … didn’t mention it.
Would both outlets be equally worthwhile?
Whether or not an outlet is more or less accurate doesn’t matter to me, I evaluate articles on a case-by-case basis.
Do you cross reference against other sources, to see if something is being omitted or lied about?
It depends on the article. For omission it’s harder for me to detect, I mostly prioritize whether or not the article is spreading falsehoods. A lot of right leaning websites (as well as left-wing independent media) will include links or embeds to where they got their information from. In this article, for example, their source for the pictures in the article comes directly from the NYPD’s X account, which is embedded in the article:
https://x.com/NYPDnews/status/1864706407985221974
In many instances of bigger stories, they will include details that I’ve seen spread by other outlets like the AP or CNN. I generally don’t have time to chase down every claim, which is why I encourage others to point out things that are wrong in the articles if they happen to notice something, but a red flag I look out for is charged language on both left and right wing articles. Especially on the right, as a right leaning source like TheBlaze is more likely to follow the standard conventions of a hard news source when writing their headlines than something like RawStory so it makes bias a bit more unexpected.