How can you find unbiased, fair news and know which side to trust?

[Siajanua2027]

[Telekinetic-Potato]

You have to read a lot. Read enough that you start to recognize the agendas of each individual source to the point you get a habit of guessing the spin for a given title.

And ask questions that you research. Why is this pipeline bad? Who blew the whistle on this law being presented? Who's getting paid when a war starts in one place or another.

Pay attention to the stock exchange symbols on each article. You'll notice companies that make you ask "what do they have to do with any of this?"

Be a detective. No source is u bias and the closest thing to truth you can ask for these days is an ambiguous idea of what probably is going on

[strateguy632]

almost impossible. copy paste it. delete emotional and judgmental words. see if anything remains.

[demonics]

I imagine an AI model will be able to do that... some 9 page article will be chopped down to 3 sentences of actual fact statements that can be checked.

[Anonymous]

You should check multiple sources. If they are all saying the same thing then it’s likely true.

[demonics]

Easy test. I call it the reverse Gell-Mann Amnesia Effect test.

Gell-Mann Amnesia Effect - Occurs when a subject matter expert can suss out false-hoods and inaccuracies in subjects which they are an expert in i. e. a poorly researched piece in the newspaper... but then turn the page and believe every word of an article on a topic they are not an expert in, despite the same author writing BOTH pieces, as if suddenly forgetting that this author is untrustworthy.

Just do the reverse, scour news sites for topics you are knowledgeable in and search for inaccuracies. Then toss out that reporter/journo's entire credibility on everything else... You'll quickly discover that there's no point in consuming 90% of news.

Not to mention there's basic techniques you can use to determine whether you are consuming outright propaganda or not. Case in point:

...

[Spencer10]

I stick to mainstream media but from several sources. The fact is only mainstream media ultimately is held responsible for what they report. They have journalistic rules and libel laws to hold them accountable. Other media does not... but you still have to seek out multiple sources and views.

[demonics]

"They have journalistic rules and libel laws"

Couple of problems with that:

Weasel Words - are vague, ambiguous words or phrases used to create the impression of a specific, meaningful claim when none is actually being made. They act as an escape hatch, allowing the speaker to avoid commitments, hedge their bets, or later deny responsibility for their statements

Truthful But Not Accurate -A statement is truthful but not accurate when it sincerely reflects the speaker's subjective belief or a partial fact, but fails to represent the objective reality or the complete picture. It occurs when vital context is omitted or personal biases cause misinterpretation.

Deception by Omission - Leaving out critical parts of a story while focusing only on the true parts can intentionally create a false impression in the listener's mind.

New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U. S. 254 (1964) - a landmark U. S. Supreme Court decision that ruled the freedom of speech protections in the First Amendment to the U. S. Constitution limit the ability of public officials to sue for defamation. The decision held that if a plaintiff in a defamation lawsuit is a public official or candidate for public office, then not only must they prove the normal elements of defamation—publication of a false defamatory statement to a third party—they must also prove that the statement was made with "actual malice", meaning the defendant either knew the statement was false or recklessly disregarded whether it might be false. "Politician X raped a woman" on the front page of the newspaper. "WE didn't say that... she said it... we just wrote 57 articles about it in the last 2 weeks just before an election... oh you lost your election? Well she just recanted her statements so I guess its all settled now."

[demonics]

Citogenesis - a form of circular reporting where an invented or false claim on Wikipedia is published by a news source or academic journal (which fails to verify the wiki's content), and that new publication is subsequently used as a "reliable" citation back on Wikipedia to validate the original lie. The term highlights the vulnerability of collaborative platforms to systemic misinformation, specifically through a 4-step loop:

1. Generation: A user invents or mistakenly adds false information to a Wikipedia article.
2. Amplification: A rushed journalist or author uses Wikipedia as informal research and publishes the false claim as fact in their own media outlet, usually without an original citation.
3. Verification: A Wikipedia editor spots the claim in the newly published media and adds the publication as an official source in the Wikipedia article.
4. Closure: The false information is now "verified" on Wikipedia, perpetuating the cycle as other writers and platforms continue to cite it.

[zagor]

you have to look at diverse sources, but not the ones that clearly exist only to push a particular agenda.

[exitseven]

You have to look at a wide spectrum of sources and make up your own mind.

[Anonymous]

First of all, stay away from all "news" programs on TV. I WOULD tell you to watch or listen to TruNews with Rick Wiles, but Rick finally ended that Christian-oriented news as per instructions from the Holy Spirit. Rick started that program back around 2000. The best news area to focus on would be what you can hear from the American Christian Network (AM radio)

[DryGermanGuy]

Unfortunately, you don’t speak German.

[Anonymous]

I just avoid news entirely for that reason

[blackeagle007]

Who can you trust?