How do I fact-check the news (step by step)?
-
While this is great advice, it requires the ability to distinguish plausible from implausible claims and from what OP describes, we're not at that point yet.
E.g. if you google "why is Trump a bad leader." And then read i.e. "Tariffs are hurting the economy." And then you look for "Are tariffs good for the economy?" you will find pages both saying they are and they aren't.
But that’s no different from any other kind of conflicting evidence in any scientific process. What’s required to distinguish plausible from not isn’t “intelligence” per se, it’s determination to continue asking more questions in order to gather more data.
For example if one source says “tariffs will pay off the debt”, and another says “tariffs will cause inflation” reasonable disambiguating questions to ask might be “have tariffs paid off the debt in the past?” or “have tariffs caused inflation in the past?”
The key is to 1. Not stop with positive evidence, but to continue to fail to find negative evidence 2. Not stop with opinions but find a balance of facts
-
There's the S.I.F.T. method which can be pretty quick and effective.
Stands for - Stop, Investigate the source, Find better coverage, Trace claimsI took a media literacy course and they talked about SIFT, CRAAP and others like it.
-
Sources like Ground News help to show where the bias of your sources lay. Mind you, even neutral sources have their issues since they may not cover more serious “partisan” topics, even if the material is very disturbing.
Ground News does have a Blind Spot tool as well to help show most stories that the other side is not talking about, excluding the very serious ones I mentioned.
Do they still call CNN leftist?
-
Do they still call CNN leftist?
wrote last edited by [email protected]They label it as “leans left” now, with independent reviewers, so not as left as other sources. Although, I question if that takes into account the topics that don’t make it on the website.
-
One general rule is to get as much information as possible from true experts
Trusting "experts" isn't exactly always a great idea, especially with the context of OP's friend in which the CCP being able to censor any dissenting opinions, so you're just reenforcing their adversion of skepticism.
It's ironic how the US's downfall is because the people are so overly skeptical of government, they end up inventing crazy conspiracy theories, meanwhile in mainland China, they are not being skeptical of the central government enough. There is has to be a resonable level of skepticism somewhere.
It can be hard to identify experts, and sometimes experts are still being told what to say by others, so you actually need to identify independent experts.
Sometimes we rely on institutional endorsement to identify experts, but that relies on the institutions themselves being independent and being primarily focused on promoting expertise.
There are other ways to identify experts, but they can be difficult to apply until you have a lot of experience with experts. There are a lot of people out there who feign expertise -- for instance, it's common for conspiracy theorists to write long books with lots of footnotes. I'm afraid that the new generative AI systems will make in much easier to feign expertise. -
I am afraid Fox doesn’t provide with the sources
Then that's a sign that Fox news (or whatever source) isn't a useful source. That's where people need to get their heads straight. Trying to fact check unsourced claims is a sucker's game - it's easier to make a BS claim than to fact check it, especially when the claims are produced by a billion-dollar propaganda machine.
-
Sources like Ground News help to show where the bias of your sources lay. Mind you, even neutral sources have their issues since they may not cover more serious “partisan” topics, even if the material is very disturbing.
Ground News does have a Blind Spot tool as well to help show most stories that the other side is not talking about, excluding the very serious ones I mentioned.
I really like ground news. I have the cheap plan, like $10/yr. Worth it.
-
I have recently talked to a Chinese friend of mine who started talking about how smart Trump is etc. She previously only gained her knowledge through the Chinese media and not the “western propaganda”, so it was her first exposure to the non-CCP-controlled stuff. I told her “you sound like you read FOX news”. She replied with “hahah yes, how did you know?”
This made me realize that she is very prone to getting manipulated and not doing any fact-checking. However, this situation made me reflect on my own news-sourcing skills.
How do you deal with the issue and what can I do step-by-step to verify the news that I read myself and at the same time a way that I can recommend to my Chinese friend so that she doesn’t fall for the most obvious tricks so easily?
I do I try my best to get the facts
-
I have recently talked to a Chinese friend of mine who started talking about how smart Trump is etc. She previously only gained her knowledge through the Chinese media and not the “western propaganda”, so it was her first exposure to the non-CCP-controlled stuff. I told her “you sound like you read FOX news”. She replied with “hahah yes, how did you know?”
This made me realize that she is very prone to getting manipulated and not doing any fact-checking. However, this situation made me reflect on my own news-sourcing skills.
How do you deal with the issue and what can I do step-by-step to verify the news that I read myself and at the same time a way that I can recommend to my Chinese friend so that she doesn’t fall for the most obvious tricks so easily?
Read multiple sources is one method.
-
They label it as “leans left” now, with independent reviewers, so not as left as other sources. Although, I question if that takes into account the topics that don’t make it on the website.
To be fair, CNN "leans left" in the same way US Democrat liberals "lean left". Which is to say, socially progressive (usually) and economically capitalist.
Assuming I'm using those terms right, which I think I am, at least in the context of the US.
-
Sources like Ground News help to show where the bias of your sources lay. Mind you, even neutral sources have their issues since they may not cover more serious “partisan” topics, even if the material is very disturbing.
Ground News does have a Blind Spot tool as well to help show most stories that the other side is not talking about, excluding the very serious ones I mentioned.
This is splitting hairs a bit, but Ground News is more of an aggregator with useful framing than a source in and of itself.
-
I have recently talked to a Chinese friend of mine who started talking about how smart Trump is etc. She previously only gained her knowledge through the Chinese media and not the “western propaganda”, so it was her first exposure to the non-CCP-controlled stuff. I told her “you sound like you read FOX news”. She replied with “hahah yes, how did you know?”
This made me realize that she is very prone to getting manipulated and not doing any fact-checking. However, this situation made me reflect on my own news-sourcing skills.
How do you deal with the issue and what can I do step-by-step to verify the news that I read myself and at the same time a way that I can recommend to my Chinese friend so that she doesn’t fall for the most obvious tricks so easily?
It's exactly why the word "NEWS" should be held to a standard, and exactly why people with insidious intent work to make that not be the case. Fox isnt news, they've legally fought that they are "entertainment" yet still use NEWS and format their shows like they are providing facts and evidence instead of pseudoscience and opinions. Bottom line is, we're all fucked, hope you liked the show!
-
I have recently talked to a Chinese friend of mine who started talking about how smart Trump is etc. She previously only gained her knowledge through the Chinese media and not the “western propaganda”, so it was her first exposure to the non-CCP-controlled stuff. I told her “you sound like you read FOX news”. She replied with “hahah yes, how did you know?”
This made me realize that she is very prone to getting manipulated and not doing any fact-checking. However, this situation made me reflect on my own news-sourcing skills.
How do you deal with the issue and what can I do step-by-step to verify the news that I read myself and at the same time a way that I can recommend to my Chinese friend so that she doesn’t fall for the most obvious tricks so easily?
wrote last edited by [email protected]- Who is publishing it? How trustworthy are they? What's their track record? What's their funding and goals?
- What's the source? Can I verify the source? Do I need to or to what degree does it fit other information I sighted or assessed previously?
- Who is supporting the information? Experts of the field? Of long investment? Or far-fetched or arbitrary people that may not have any expertise, may not have fundamentally verified their own information and biases, or are not trustworthy for other reasons?
- How recent is the information? Is there even legitimacy or urgency in giving it attention right now? Is there on-site documentation? Official analysis reports or scientific studies? Of what quality, by whom, with what on-site expertise?
Something like that.
For stuff I'm not sure of or unknowing I often check Wikipedia, which links further sources, or actually check court rulings, or laws, or state published information, etc. Having watched many documentaries and having read articles gives some assessment basis for various related topics. Watching or reading from independent invested journalists, especially when they go/went on-site, gives (reasonably) verifiable legitimacy.
As for your friend, it also depends on how much you are willing to invest. Nudging with questions like "don't you feel it's suspiciously positive?" or dropping some information like "he was bankrupt multiple times, why is he celebrated as saving the economy? doesn't that seem off?"
If they're open to other sources and information, it'll be easy. More likely, they are not, which will make it harder and a longer process if you're willing to invest. Factual information often doesn't help. Making them question stuff themselves would be the best way then.
-
I have recently talked to a Chinese friend of mine who started talking about how smart Trump is etc. She previously only gained her knowledge through the Chinese media and not the “western propaganda”, so it was her first exposure to the non-CCP-controlled stuff. I told her “you sound like you read FOX news”. She replied with “hahah yes, how did you know?”
This made me realize that she is very prone to getting manipulated and not doing any fact-checking. However, this situation made me reflect on my own news-sourcing skills.
How do you deal with the issue and what can I do step-by-step to verify the news that I read myself and at the same time a way that I can recommend to my Chinese friend so that she doesn’t fall for the most obvious tricks so easily?
I try to read multiple sources and ignore the biasing. Just look for what actually happened and quotes or preferably video to see it with your own eyes not the authors opinions. Even with this it's infuriating and obvious questions go unasked or unanswered all the time.
-
I have recently talked to a Chinese friend of mine who started talking about how smart Trump is etc. She previously only gained her knowledge through the Chinese media and not the “western propaganda”, so it was her first exposure to the non-CCP-controlled stuff. I told her “you sound like you read FOX news”. She replied with “hahah yes, how did you know?”
This made me realize that she is very prone to getting manipulated and not doing any fact-checking. However, this situation made me reflect on my own news-sourcing skills.
How do you deal with the issue and what can I do step-by-step to verify the news that I read myself and at the same time a way that I can recommend to my Chinese friend so that she doesn’t fall for the most obvious tricks so easily?
Who owns the news source?
An example:
-
I have recently talked to a Chinese friend of mine who started talking about how smart Trump is etc. She previously only gained her knowledge through the Chinese media and not the “western propaganda”, so it was her first exposure to the non-CCP-controlled stuff. I told her “you sound like you read FOX news”. She replied with “hahah yes, how did you know?”
This made me realize that she is very prone to getting manipulated and not doing any fact-checking. However, this situation made me reflect on my own news-sourcing skills.
How do you deal with the issue and what can I do step-by-step to verify the news that I read myself and at the same time a way that I can recommend to my Chinese friend so that she doesn’t fall for the most obvious tricks so easily?
We are all prone to biases established over hundreds of thousands of years of evolution. Even if you're aware of all of them and vigilant you're going to fall for them sometimes.
No source lacks bias, but you're not trying to find the least biased source. Instead use multiple sources where you can identify the general biases a source supports. Rotate multiple sources and reference the same stories and events from multiple agencies knowing which biases they generally push to get a better overall model of what is actually going on and why. Fox, Al Jazeera, RT, BBC, CNN, PBS, Reuters, France 24, AP, common dreams, democracy now, etc. include at least 1-2 geographically local sources.
My preferred method is rss feeds so I can aggregate many sources into one place. Also avoiding articles that are just person X says Y, focus on actions and events instead of people using journalism for PR like politicians and oligarchs.
-
This is splitting hairs a bit, but Ground News is more of an aggregator with useful framing than a source in and of itself.
You’re right about it being more of an aggregator. I think having a good aggregator is about as important as the sources. To be more informed, hearing the news from different perspectives is essential, I feel.
For actual sources, starting internationally is a good bet to get an outside perspective of what’s going on in your country. I feel that the BBC does a great job of covering US news for that reason. Al-Jazeera is another international source that is decent for most news in the US, but has notable biases for issues in the Middle East as far as I am aware.
For more domestic US sources, PBS and NPR are the gold standards and worth supporting since they are public broadcasting networks. The other major news networks have more notable biases since they are privately owned.
For business news, Axios, Forbes, and Yahoo Finance do a decent job.
-
To be fair, CNN "leans left" in the same way US Democrat liberals "lean left". Which is to say, socially progressive (usually) and economically capitalist.
Assuming I'm using those terms right, which I think I am, at least in the context of the US.
I would say CNN probably still is mostly left leaning (relatively), but they have had a lot more right wing stances over the past five years than they did the previous decades.
I believe you used those terms correctly, although offline people would tend to say it more as economically conservative for that second part, in the US.
-
Read multiple sources is one method.
Shall i tell her to read both Fox and MSNBC at the same time then?
-
I have recently talked to a Chinese friend of mine who started talking about how smart Trump is etc. She previously only gained her knowledge through the Chinese media and not the “western propaganda”, so it was her first exposure to the non-CCP-controlled stuff. I told her “you sound like you read FOX news”. She replied with “hahah yes, how did you know?”
This made me realize that she is very prone to getting manipulated and not doing any fact-checking. However, this situation made me reflect on my own news-sourcing skills.
How do you deal with the issue and what can I do step-by-step to verify the news that I read myself and at the same time a way that I can recommend to my Chinese friend so that she doesn’t fall for the most obvious tricks so easily?
wrote last edited by [email protected]Seriously though, does anyone know if Trump is smart or not? Anyone knows his grades when he was younger for example? Did he ever take an IQ test? What does it even mean to be smart? How do you even prove this statement?
