We all want the facts. We don't want a partial, twisted or bent to someone's point of view subset of facts. We are inundated with "news"; some of it true, some of it outright lies (fake), and some of it kinda, sorta, in a limited way, or only if looked at a certain way, then *may* be true. We must make the effort to know what we're talking about; to know the real issues not only those formulated to appeal to the reactionaries among us. Democracy depends on an educated, informed electorate (public, populace -- whatever you want to call "we the people"). We must elect informed, educated leaders. Our leaders work for us, spending our money. If this pandemic has taught us anything, it's that we are all in this together. We must know the real arguments for and against methods of controlling spread of the virus. It's not just a matter of personal choice or rights or privacy. We must make the effort, have the willingness to be informed, productive members of society. How long will the element of indifference rule us? Facts matter.
Most of us know of Snopes.com, a long time respected rumor debunker and mis-information corrector (they are a non-profit you may want to support). It takes time to investigate a tale, check sources, to determine the source and validity of the items Snopes will research. They may not have an immediate response on something you just now read or heard (Breaking news!! Trump lied about [fill in the blank here]). Edit 5/16/20 - I wanted to add FactCheck as a fact check source. I missed including it the other day. Edit 5/30/20 - I wanted to add a fact check source I've only recently found, https://leadstories.com. It seems to be a bit quicker on some fact checks, confirming or rebutting some I hadn't even heard about. It rates 'least biased' and 'very high' factually at MBFC, and has filtering for 'red', 'blue', 'coronavirus' sections if you want.
There's https://www.reuters.com/fact-check, a reliable site for checking some of those "news" stories. I've seen debunkings of stories that I hadn't yet seen; some so outrageous I have to wonder how anyone could have believed them in the first place. Their home page https://www.reuters.com/ covers many of the stories used as source material for more familiar legitimate news providers.
As you broaden your outlook, you may need to check the reputation of new to you information sources. Besides your own observations noting the language used (attempting to guide your opinion in the direction the writer wants), you can check a source you're interested in at https://mediabiasfactcheck.com (MBFC throughout rest of this piece). Their search box is at the top upper right of their pages. I only recently discovered a rating scale I didn't even know they had https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/2020/05/07/daily-source-bias-check-rense/ LOL.
As you're reading an item, watch for inflammatory or leading words or phrases. Know the reputation of your source. It's sometime difficult to find unbiased media; use multiple legitimate news sources to try to get a more complete picture of an event. If you only read and follow what you already agree with, you set up an echo chamber and never hear opposing points of view, or a new idea you've never considered. Consider and compare "Overall, we rate Fox News strongly Right-Biased due to editorial positions and story selection that favors the right. We also rate them Mixed factually and borderline Questionable based on poor sourcing and the spreading of conspiracy theories that later must be retracted after being widely shared. Further, Fox News would be rated a Questionable source based on numerous failed fact checks by hosts and pundits, however straight news reporting is generally reliable, therefore we rate them Mixed for factual reporting" to "Overall, we rate CNN left biased based on editorial positions that consistently favor the left, while straight news reporting falls left-center through bias by omission. We also rate them Mixed for factual reporting due to several failed fact checks by TV hosts. However, news reporting on the website tends to be be properly sourced with minimal failed fact checks" both from MBFC. These are two of the most popular news sites according to some polls. Anyone limiting themselves to either of these two as a sole information source is not going to have a complete picture of the event or issues.
Also, know the difference between an OpEd piece and a news article. Maybe, try to get your news from sites rated "least biased" with "high" or "very high" factual reporting. These sites are often not as popular, lacking the glamour, glitz, splashy graphics and celebrity names of their more widely known competitors. BBC "Overall, we rate the BBC Left-Center biased based on story selection that slightly favors the left and High for factual reporting due to proper sourcing of information" or NPR is a possible choice "Overall, we rate NPR (National Public Radio) Left-Center Biased based on story selection that leans slightly left and Very High for factual reporting due to thorough sourcing and very accurate news reporting" but no lean in story selection would be even better, IMO. Facts matter a lot to me. I hate being deliberately deceived or lied to.
I've found Reuters and AP News reliable for overall news stories. Reuters has their own fact check section, mentioned earlier. NewsFactsNetwork is a conglomerator site related to Media Bias Fact Check. It provides summaries and links of important news items complete with the ratings bias of the original sources. The Conversation ("Overall, we rate The Conversation Least Biased based on covering both the right-center and left-center politically, as well as covering evidence based topics. We also rate them High for factual reporting due to excellent sourcing of information and a clean fact check record. In fact, The Conversation is an IFCN fact checker") almost always has something interesting, as does Politico ("Overall, we rate Politico Least Biased based on balanced coverage of news stories and High for factual reporting due to proper sourcing and a clean fact check record"). When I want technology news, I go to Arstechnica or ZDnet. For science, I start at RealClearScience (conglomerator, factual reporting high, pro-science, individual contributors may need to be checked individually). There's also RealClearPolitics you may want to check out (MBFC: "Overall, we rate Real Clear Politics as Right-Center biased based on source selection that leans right. We also rate them Mostly Factual in reporting rather than High due to the use of some sources that have failed fact checks"). I also read The Washington Post but they have a limited number of free articles per month ("Overall, we rate The Washington Post Left-Center biased based on editorial positions that moderately favors the left and factually High due to the use of proper sources and a reasonable fact check record") for wider general coverage, and The Atlantic, Al-Jazeera and some others for "in-depth investigative reports". I will occasionally visit Fox, and even more rarely, Huffington Post or Breitbart.
We need contact tracing to try to prevent recently exposed but not yet symptomatic people from carrying the virus to others. We need solutions, not knee jerk reactions. That can only be accomplished by informed people working together. Old tech (phone calls, home visits) or new tech (https://www.zdnet.com/article/google-researchers-show-how-covid-19-super-spreaders-are-a-big-part-of-the-problem/) doesn't matter as much as what works for the best outcome in the least time and for the money we have to spend. Talk with neighbors, family, friends. Share workable ideas, based on facts. Tell your representatives. Together, we can do this.
Most of us know of Snopes.com, a long time respected rumor debunker and mis-information corrector (they are a non-profit you may want to support). It takes time to investigate a tale, check sources, to determine the source and validity of the items Snopes will research. They may not have an immediate response on something you just now read or heard (Breaking news!! Trump lied about [fill in the blank here]). Edit 5/16/20 - I wanted to add FactCheck as a fact check source. I missed including it the other day. Edit 5/30/20 - I wanted to add a fact check source I've only recently found, https://leadstories.com. It seems to be a bit quicker on some fact checks, confirming or rebutting some I hadn't even heard about. It rates 'least biased' and 'very high' factually at MBFC, and has filtering for 'red', 'blue', 'coronavirus' sections if you want.There's https://www.reuters.com/fact-check, a reliable site for checking some of those "news" stories. I've seen debunkings of stories that I hadn't yet seen; some so outrageous I have to wonder how anyone could have believed them in the first place. Their home page https://www.reuters.com/ covers many of the stories used as source material for more familiar legitimate news providers.
As you broaden your outlook, you may need to check the reputation of new to you information sources. Besides your own observations noting the language used (attempting to guide your opinion in the direction the writer wants), you can check a source you're interested in at https://mediabiasfactcheck.com (MBFC throughout rest of this piece). Their search box is at the top upper right of their pages. I only recently discovered a rating scale I didn't even know they had https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/2020/05/07/daily-source-bias-check-rense/ LOL.
As you're reading an item, watch for inflammatory or leading words or phrases. Know the reputation of your source. It's sometime difficult to find unbiased media; use multiple legitimate news sources to try to get a more complete picture of an event. If you only read and follow what you already agree with, you set up an echo chamber and never hear opposing points of view, or a new idea you've never considered. Consider and compare "Overall, we rate Fox News strongly Right-Biased due to editorial positions and story selection that favors the right. We also rate them Mixed factually and borderline Questionable based on poor sourcing and the spreading of conspiracy theories that later must be retracted after being widely shared. Further, Fox News would be rated a Questionable source based on numerous failed fact checks by hosts and pundits, however straight news reporting is generally reliable, therefore we rate them Mixed for factual reporting" to "Overall, we rate CNN left biased based on editorial positions that consistently favor the left, while straight news reporting falls left-center through bias by omission. We also rate them Mixed for factual reporting due to several failed fact checks by TV hosts. However, news reporting on the website tends to be be properly sourced with minimal failed fact checks" both from MBFC. These are two of the most popular news sites according to some polls. Anyone limiting themselves to either of these two as a sole information source is not going to have a complete picture of the event or issues. Also, know the difference between an OpEd piece and a news article. Maybe, try to get your news from sites rated "least biased" with "high" or "very high" factual reporting. These sites are often not as popular, lacking the glamour, glitz, splashy graphics and celebrity names of their more widely known competitors. BBC "Overall, we rate the BBC Left-Center biased based on story selection that slightly favors the left and High for factual reporting due to proper sourcing of information" or NPR is a possible choice "Overall, we rate NPR (National Public Radio) Left-Center Biased based on story selection that leans slightly left and Very High for factual reporting due to thorough sourcing and very accurate news reporting" but no lean in story selection would be even better, IMO. Facts matter a lot to me. I hate being deliberately deceived or lied to.
I've found Reuters and AP News reliable for overall news stories. Reuters has their own fact check section, mentioned earlier. NewsFactsNetwork is a conglomerator site related to Media Bias Fact Check. It provides summaries and links of important news items complete with the ratings bias of the original sources. The Conversation ("Overall, we rate The Conversation Least Biased based on covering both the right-center and left-center politically, as well as covering evidence based topics. We also rate them High for factual reporting due to excellent sourcing of information and a clean fact check record. In fact, The Conversation is an IFCN fact checker") almost always has something interesting, as does Politico ("Overall, we rate Politico Least Biased based on balanced coverage of news stories and High for factual reporting due to proper sourcing and a clean fact check record"). When I want technology news, I go to Arstechnica or ZDnet. For science, I start at RealClearScience (conglomerator, factual reporting high, pro-science, individual contributors may need to be checked individually). There's also RealClearPolitics you may want to check out (MBFC: "Overall, we rate Real Clear Politics as Right-Center biased based on source selection that leans right. We also rate them Mostly Factual in reporting rather than High due to the use of some sources that have failed fact checks"). I also read The Washington Post but they have a limited number of free articles per month ("Overall, we rate The Washington Post Left-Center biased based on editorial positions that moderately favors the left and factually High due to the use of proper sources and a reasonable fact check record") for wider general coverage, and The Atlantic, Al-Jazeera and some others for "in-depth investigative reports". I will occasionally visit Fox, and even more rarely, Huffington Post or Breitbart. We need contact tracing to try to prevent recently exposed but not yet symptomatic people from carrying the virus to others. We need solutions, not knee jerk reactions. That can only be accomplished by informed people working together. Old tech (phone calls, home visits) or new tech (https://www.zdnet.com/article/google-researchers-show-how-covid-19-super-spreaders-are-a-big-part-of-the-problem/) doesn't matter as much as what works for the best outcome in the least time and for the money we have to spend. Talk with neighbors, family, friends. Share workable ideas, based on facts. Tell your representatives. Together, we can do this.
Comments
Post a Comment
Please be respectful. We reserve the right to remove comments for any reason at any time we deem necessary.