the sad thing here is that we probably don’t have one big source we can point to. all we can do is judge what we have according to their circumstances and adjusting our worldview accordingly.
e.g. media owned by a rich person probably cant be trusted not to push their interests, and you have to take it into account.
Evaluating news sources isn’t simply ignoring every media that looks biased and looking for the one that’s not (which arguably doesn’t exist). It’s knowing what this bias is for a few sources and comparing their reporting for the same event in order to make your own opinion.
The issue is that naively trying to average out reporting like this means you are still allowing the most biased sources pull your impression away from the true mean. This is very specifically what a lot of the foreign influence propaganda has exploited to steer narratives in western media. They know that people do this, and they know that if they report outright lies they can still get impressions from enough people to move the needle.
This is a reasonable answer. I think in the context of this meme we’re seeing an evolving story. In the first headline there is no source quoted, in the second the information comes from Hamas, and in the third from Israel. Who can you trust? In this case neither source. But in general I would trust Reuters over someone like Fox
Actual newspapers that had time to fact-check their stories before printing and don’t have to participate in the “first out the door wins the attention contest”-game
Everybody wants tomorrows news yesterday,and they want it SO bad theyre willing to believe false narratives and outright lies based on “sources close to the matter”.
All of the corporate owned media is fucked, including centralized social media.
And fuck Reuters too.
So what would be a reliable news source?
Uncle Jimbo!
the sad thing here is that we probably don’t have one big source we can point to. all we can do is judge what we have according to their circumstances and adjusting our worldview accordingly.
e.g. media owned by a rich person probably cant be trusted not to push their interests, and you have to take it into account.
Evaluating news sources isn’t simply ignoring every media that looks biased and looking for the one that’s not (which arguably doesn’t exist). It’s knowing what this bias is for a few sources and comparing their reporting for the same event in order to make your own opinion.
The issue is that naively trying to average out reporting like this means you are still allowing the most biased sources pull your impression away from the true mean. This is very specifically what a lot of the foreign influence propaganda has exploited to steer narratives in western media. They know that people do this, and they know that if they report outright lies they can still get impressions from enough people to move the needle.
This is a reasonable answer. I think in the context of this meme we’re seeing an evolving story. In the first headline there is no source quoted, in the second the information comes from Hamas, and in the third from Israel. Who can you trust? In this case neither source. But in general I would trust Reuters over someone like Fox
Actual newspapers that had time to fact-check their stories before printing and don’t have to participate in the “first out the door wins the attention contest”-game
Except a lot of those have a distinct pro-establishment and pro-Israel bias.
NYT might be hybrid print and online now, but it’s still considered the establishment paper of record and it’s EXTREMELY pro-Israel and pro-cop.
Official filings and statements.
Everybody wants tomorrows news yesterday,and they want it SO bad theyre willing to believe false narratives and outright lies based on “sources close to the matter”.
Patience is the best news source.
Except nobody in their right mind trusts the official statements of the Israeli government anymore.
For that matter, an involved authority is often one of the WORST possible sources in general.