I think it depends on topic, which is what I was trying to get at with my comment. Everything is biased, so virtually everything has been a purveyor of false information depending on your interpretation.
It’s just that certain sources are more guaranteed to lie about certain topics.
Example CNN at least historically has been very “catastrophising” so perhaps something about climate change may show only worst case predictions.
Whereas Fox News may intentionally downplay climate change studies.
The truth is somewhere in the middle- climate change is a catastrophe but we’re talking about the most serious effects probably not showing up for hundreds of years. Etc
Maybe a bad example but my main point is that you can’t trust any one organization and instead need to get a sense of the big picture in order to determine the truth (or as close as we can get to the truth) for yourself.
both those examples though are ones I won’t bother taking into account as they are both bad sources. One thing I do like though is the improve the news algorithm thing that is on the fediverse. The algorithm is interesting but the really big thing is it aggragates news articles around a topic. Usually at least a dozen sources.
Yes I agree I don’t use either of those sources it’s more to just illustrate what I’m trying to say with an extreme example of obvious bias. Here, let’s try this.
Keep in mind im not saying these sources are above reproach and should not still have their stories critically evaluated or that any one of these sources should be used without corroporation but again I like that improve the enws thing, npr, bbc, my cities local news stations, reuters. Also when it comes to the internet many people post things that come from the sources sites but are not news articles. anytime its an opinion page or such you can’t include it.
I think it depends on topic, which is what I was trying to get at with my comment. Everything is biased, so virtually everything has been a purveyor of false information depending on your interpretation.
It’s just that certain sources are more guaranteed to lie about certain topics.
Example CNN at least historically has been very “catastrophising” so perhaps something about climate change may show only worst case predictions.
Whereas Fox News may intentionally downplay climate change studies.
The truth is somewhere in the middle- climate change is a catastrophe but we’re talking about the most serious effects probably not showing up for hundreds of years. Etc
Maybe a bad example but my main point is that you can’t trust any one organization and instead need to get a sense of the big picture in order to determine the truth (or as close as we can get to the truth) for yourself.
both those examples though are ones I won’t bother taking into account as they are both bad sources. One thing I do like though is the improve the news algorithm thing that is on the fediverse. The algorithm is interesting but the really big thing is it aggragates news articles around a topic. Usually at least a dozen sources.
Yes I agree I don’t use either of those sources it’s more to just illustrate what I’m trying to say with an extreme example of obvious bias. Here, let’s try this.
What are some sources you find legitimate?
Keep in mind im not saying these sources are above reproach and should not still have their stories critically evaluated or that any one of these sources should be used without corroporation but again I like that improve the enws thing, npr, bbc, my cities local news stations, reuters. Also when it comes to the internet many people post things that come from the sources sites but are not news articles. anytime its an opinion page or such you can’t include it.