Okay...but THEN what?

[rambot]

I've been worried about this for a while and I absolutely see it creeping around up here in Alberta too.

There's been threads on it too: News media trust. We see a strong erosion in the trust in that media. It's happenned at other points in history but we don't need to get into that.

My first thought when I hear "we can't trust the news" is.... "okay....but THEN what?" As citizens in a democracy, we have a bit of an obligation to be informed.

There are avenues whereby misrepresentations in news media websites can be fixed, edited, errors acknowledged etc. There are also organizations that acknowledge and reward good journalism.

Because good journalism is essential to a healthy democracy; nobody can argue with that.

So where are we getting our information from then? Are they reputable? How do they hold themselves accountable for unclear information? MOST important, how distinct is the writing style between the "news" and the "opinion" sections (if there are any). As humans, we are inclined to listen to the people who we agree with the most...but we also know that they are going to have some of their own strong opinions. So how do we accept information from talking head opinion givers? We say we "Watch the news" when really we watch "opinion pieces" and I think a lot of people think those two things are 100% interchangeable.

Maybe there are two questions "how bad has the journalism ACTUALLY gotten" versus "how has our perception of the news changed".

I think it is very, very reasonable to say that there is a much higher level of skepticism in institutions than in the past; I just wonder again, about how much the organization has changed and how does my perception of those things change.

 

[Sif]

As someone who often does investigation (not criminal as I am not law enforcement) I have to use the media. I sometimes do work on terrorist events/attacks. Those can be very chaotic at the beginning as there is conflicting information coming out. Once I see a few pieces of information being consistently repeated in multiple sources I am more comfortable with using and citing them. As a rule I stay away from Op/Ed pieces. I often feel I am more informed about a topic that the journalist bloviating about the topic du jour.

In my current focus, Anti-Human Trafficking, the media sources I use are well documented and free of op/ed non-sense. Often they are law enforcement press releases rather than an article written/ broadcasted about the event by a journalist.

When gathering information on my own I look to review multiple sources and look for consistency between them. I also watch for inflammatory language. There is no need for an article to use overly negative language in say describing Human Traffickers. Being a Human Trafficker is negative enough.

The key is: Engage Your Brain. Sadly, for many modern people I think that is an exceptionally rare skill/ability.

 

[Just Somebody]

When gathering information on my own I look to review multiple sources and look for consistency between them. I also watch for inflammatory language. There is no need for an article to use overly negative language in say describing Human Traffickers. Being a Human Trafficker is negative enough.

The key is: Engage Your Brain. Sadly, for many modern people I think that is an exceptionally rare skill/ability.

I agree 100%. I don't find it difficult to find accurate information. But it requires looking at multiple sources, differentiating between the option and factual statements that may be mixed together, and evaluating the quality of any given source. It also often requires waiting until the initial rush of unsubstantiated rumor clears and the truth starts to emerge.

Criteria I use to evaluate the quality of a source:
- Not straw manning others views
- Treating everyone with respect
- Making it clear what is fact and what is opinion
- Having been a regular source of information I've found to be reliable in the past
- Playing the ball and not the person when it comes to providing opinion or judgement

 

[ozso]

There's the news. This and that happened today, without a lot of commentary added in. Just the raw basic facts.
Then there's the gossip, the rumor mongering, the fear mongering, the sensationalism, the propaganda. News media needs to trim the fat. But the fat brings in big bucks.

 

[NBB]

I think fair and honest news is almost non existent, is like everyone aligns and favors sometimes with dishonesty their party or ideology.
I don't say they mostly lie, but hide what they don't like/harms their side, show what benefits, and makes commentary biased in favor of their side.
I guess you have to look at multiple sources, investigate a bit then draw conclusions maybe you find someplace you like more than others.