Help this news consumer be ware: evaluating news media trustworthiness
June 27, 2017 11:08 AM Subscribe
All this news media distrust going around is starting to rub off on me, and it's unsettling to say the least. I figure the best thing I could do is to kind of start from scratch, and evaluate as many of the most known sources of news (newspapers, magazines, radio programs, online news sites, etc.) as I can, in the most objective way that I can. The hope is to ultimately feel confident in ignoring the less trustworthy sources and trusting the most reliable sources. So please give me ideas and resources for evaluating those sources for trustworthiness/reliability. Some fine print below.
As an American, I'm most interested in American news sources, but am open to international ones as well. Also, bias or slant is not a big concern for me, as I'm used to taking that into account when I'm getting my news from a given source (also, I try to get a balance of news sources with different points of view, as long as they are all reliable). The main thing is that the information a news source provides is consistently correct. You know, not fake.
As an American, I'm most interested in American news sources, but am open to international ones as well. Also, bias or slant is not a big concern for me, as I'm used to taking that into account when I'm getting my news from a given source (also, I try to get a balance of news sources with different points of view, as long as they are all reliable). The main thing is that the information a news source provides is consistently correct. You know, not fake.
The key thing to remember is that a lot of media outlets are owned by special interests groups, or the owners are in bed with said groups. Just look up who owns whatever media outlets you utilize, and follow the money trail. What are their political views, are they a well known conservative or liberal? What stocks do they own? How might spinning the truth benefit them? This always helps me. Also independent media outlets tend to be more reliable than main stream. The little guy doing his own research and traveling to the 'news' who has a small following but who doesn't stand to benefit from lying is typically the guy to listen to. There are small organizations that report on what's happening in real-time in any given situation and independent radio shows that are great. Just think critically and ask questions, do your own research.
posted by Avosunspin at 11:30 AM on June 27, 2017 [1 favorite]
posted by Avosunspin at 11:30 AM on June 27, 2017 [1 favorite]
I found Vanessa Otero's chart to be helpful. She's subsequently linked to this [unattributed] extended version - I'm not sure I 100% agree with their designations but isn't so wrong as to be nonuseful.
posted by Mchelly at 11:58 AM on June 27, 2017 [4 favorites]
posted by Mchelly at 11:58 AM on June 27, 2017 [4 favorites]
Look at coverage of the same story from a variety of sources. If you're not trying to pinpoint to the micron the very specific biases of each source, you can pretty easily sort them into "sounds legit" and "complete hogwash" buckets.
Honestly, the usual sources are still mostly perfectly fine. I have cut my ties to NPR because they've been really egregious is not pushing back on some stuff that I'd like them to push back on, but it's not like they're going to report that someone said something they flatly didn't say, or that something happened that didn't happen. NPR isn't going to Bowling Green Massacre you. They'll tell you the factual things that happened today.
"Fake news" isn't happening via major media outlets for the most part. (Fox notwithstanding because they just can't seem to help themselves sometimes.) It might not be super high quality reporting coming out of those outlets, but it's not, like, made up.
posted by soren_lorensen at 12:05 PM on June 27, 2017 [3 favorites]
Honestly, the usual sources are still mostly perfectly fine. I have cut my ties to NPR because they've been really egregious is not pushing back on some stuff that I'd like them to push back on, but it's not like they're going to report that someone said something they flatly didn't say, or that something happened that didn't happen. NPR isn't going to Bowling Green Massacre you. They'll tell you the factual things that happened today.
"Fake news" isn't happening via major media outlets for the most part. (Fox notwithstanding because they just can't seem to help themselves sometimes.) It might not be super high quality reporting coming out of those outlets, but it's not, like, made up.
posted by soren_lorensen at 12:05 PM on June 27, 2017 [3 favorites]
The New York Times is the standard for a reason. They report real news.
And you can't go wrong with that good old standby, Reuters.
posted by BostonTerrier at 12:23 PM on June 27, 2017 [1 favorite]
And you can't go wrong with that good old standby, Reuters.
posted by BostonTerrier at 12:23 PM on June 27, 2017 [1 favorite]
The technique I employ is to read EVERYTHING (I don't watch news because the images distract from the information) and then marry that with knowledge of how a particular system or industry works and figure it out on my own. A working knowledge of media ownership and relationships helps, but if you start from the premise it's biased in some way, it's easy to spot the bias without knowing the background. Let me explain...
In any basic journalism class, you are taught the Who, What, Where, When, and How. One or more of those is usually missing these days from any particular coverage, and that's usually where the bias is. Then it's helpful to always ask yourself one or two deeper questions as an exercise when reading an article. Train yourself to spot obvious unanswered questions. Keep the unanswered questions in your back pocket as you read sources with an opposing slant. Try not to get enraged, lol.
I have a recent example, but it will likely get this answer deleted. Long story short, there's always a twist. Oh, I know! Go read some articles about what's been going on in Qatar lately and see if you can spot the underlying geopolitical story there. It's possible someone has written about the backstory by now, but I had to do some digging and talk to a few folks who might know better than me what might be underlying. Syria is also really interesting. Did you know that previously Syria was very stable and prosperous? It was the country you went to in the region to work and make money. That should bring up a lot of questions for you and inspire some research to find out how Syria went from stable and prosperous to where it is today. The answer is not exactly "extremists!" Everytime you see words like "rebel" or "extremists," or "terrorists" or "guerrilla" - ask yourself who funds these groups. Do you know how weapon sales work? How buyers and sellers get around laws and sanctions? That story is fascinating. Then when you read anything about extremists committing violence you have a whole additional layer of knowledge and questions to apply.
I'm really really sorry there is not a simple answer here. It's like a muscle you exercise, you get better parsing the news by engaging with it via curiosity vs. blind consumption. Oh, and you should look up the etymology of "fake news" - who promoted the term recently to make it into A Thing, what words were used for that type of journalism previously, and how bad information sometimes results by accident and sometimes on purpose.
Also, bone up on marketing, advertising, public relations and lobbying work. Very often these days, information journalists report on comes from, or is heavily influenced by, one of these industries on behalf of a client. An example might be if you see a lot of negative stories about beef in the news, the stories might be a result of work by marketing and PR firms on behalf of poultry associations.
If someone has codified this somewhere, I'd be excited to see that. In general, I get a lot from checking out biased sources, including knowing that there's more going on than "covfefe" if that's what everyone is talking about. I recommend at least perusing the headlines on, say, Yahoo News and just noting any patterns that inevitably crop up. Then proceed on to other news sources or aggregators.
This answer assumes you know not to click on "clickbait" news blogs that are just advertising in disguise.
posted by jbenben at 12:37 PM on June 27, 2017 [2 favorites]
In any basic journalism class, you are taught the Who, What, Where, When, and How. One or more of those is usually missing these days from any particular coverage, and that's usually where the bias is. Then it's helpful to always ask yourself one or two deeper questions as an exercise when reading an article. Train yourself to spot obvious unanswered questions. Keep the unanswered questions in your back pocket as you read sources with an opposing slant. Try not to get enraged, lol.
I have a recent example, but it will likely get this answer deleted. Long story short, there's always a twist. Oh, I know! Go read some articles about what's been going on in Qatar lately and see if you can spot the underlying geopolitical story there. It's possible someone has written about the backstory by now, but I had to do some digging and talk to a few folks who might know better than me what might be underlying. Syria is also really interesting. Did you know that previously Syria was very stable and prosperous? It was the country you went to in the region to work and make money. That should bring up a lot of questions for you and inspire some research to find out how Syria went from stable and prosperous to where it is today. The answer is not exactly "extremists!" Everytime you see words like "rebel" or "extremists," or "terrorists" or "guerrilla" - ask yourself who funds these groups. Do you know how weapon sales work? How buyers and sellers get around laws and sanctions? That story is fascinating. Then when you read anything about extremists committing violence you have a whole additional layer of knowledge and questions to apply.
I'm really really sorry there is not a simple answer here. It's like a muscle you exercise, you get better parsing the news by engaging with it via curiosity vs. blind consumption. Oh, and you should look up the etymology of "fake news" - who promoted the term recently to make it into A Thing, what words were used for that type of journalism previously, and how bad information sometimes results by accident and sometimes on purpose.
Also, bone up on marketing, advertising, public relations and lobbying work. Very often these days, information journalists report on comes from, or is heavily influenced by, one of these industries on behalf of a client. An example might be if you see a lot of negative stories about beef in the news, the stories might be a result of work by marketing and PR firms on behalf of poultry associations.
If someone has codified this somewhere, I'd be excited to see that. In general, I get a lot from checking out biased sources, including knowing that there's more going on than "covfefe" if that's what everyone is talking about. I recommend at least perusing the headlines on, say, Yahoo News and just noting any patterns that inevitably crop up. Then proceed on to other news sources or aggregators.
This answer assumes you know not to click on "clickbait" news blogs that are just advertising in disguise.
posted by jbenben at 12:37 PM on June 27, 2017 [2 favorites]
Here's an article and list that seems reasonable to me:
10 Journalism Brands Where You Find Real Facts Rather Than Alternative Facts, though it does skew old (that is, ignores newcomers like Vox.com).
It might help if you identify specific outlets that you're having trouble evaluating.
Also, I disagree that "independent media outlets tend to be more reliable than main stream." because they don't "stand to benefit from lying." Anyone with an agenda might think that they will benefit by lying.
1. The New York Times
2. The Wall Street Journal
3. The Washington Post
4. BBC
5. The Economist
6. The New Yorker
7. Wire Services: The Associated Press, Reuters, Bloomberg News
8. Foreign Affairs
9. The Atlantic
10. Politico
Runners Up:
- National Public Radio
- TIME magazine
-The Christian Science Monitor
- The Los Angeles Times (and many other regional, metropolitan daily newspapers)
- USA Today
- CNN
- NBC News
- CBS News
- ABC News
Business News Sources:
- FORBES magazine
- Bloomberg BusinessWeek magazine
- Fortune magazine
- The Financial Times newspaper
Sources of reporting and opinion from the right of the political spectrum:
- National Review
- The Weekly Standard
Sources of reporting and opinion from the left of the political spectrum:
- The New Republic
- The Nation
posted by Mr.Know-it-some at 12:40 PM on June 27, 2017 [3 favorites]
10 Journalism Brands Where You Find Real Facts Rather Than Alternative Facts, though it does skew old (that is, ignores newcomers like Vox.com).
It might help if you identify specific outlets that you're having trouble evaluating.
Also, I disagree that "independent media outlets tend to be more reliable than main stream." because they don't "stand to benefit from lying." Anyone with an agenda might think that they will benefit by lying.
1. The New York Times
2. The Wall Street Journal
3. The Washington Post
4. BBC
5. The Economist
6. The New Yorker
7. Wire Services: The Associated Press, Reuters, Bloomberg News
8. Foreign Affairs
9. The Atlantic
10. Politico
Runners Up:
- National Public Radio
- TIME magazine
-The Christian Science Monitor
- The Los Angeles Times (and many other regional, metropolitan daily newspapers)
- USA Today
- CNN
- NBC News
- CBS News
- ABC News
Business News Sources:
- FORBES magazine
- Bloomberg BusinessWeek magazine
- Fortune magazine
- The Financial Times newspaper
Sources of reporting and opinion from the right of the political spectrum:
- National Review
- The Weekly Standard
Sources of reporting and opinion from the left of the political spectrum:
- The New Republic
- The Nation
posted by Mr.Know-it-some at 12:40 PM on June 27, 2017 [3 favorites]
In terms of improving your ability to analyze and understand how the news is being served up to you, you can't do much better than On The Media. Their Breaking News Consumer Handbooks can help you make sense of reporting on hot button issues and how to ask the right questions to see if you're being served well.
posted by brookeb at 12:49 PM on June 27, 2017 [4 favorites]
posted by brookeb at 12:49 PM on June 27, 2017 [4 favorites]
There are no flawless media outlets. Everyone makes mistakes. The New York Times is always cited as the most trustworthy source in America, but in 2003, they had Judith Miller claiming definitely that Iraq had WMDs and Jayson Blair writing outright fiction. Fake news can happen anywhere, especially when you're talking about subjects that are not immediately verifiable by the average person (e.g., intelligence briefings, high-level closed-door strategy meetings). And simple fact mistakes are inevitable. Literally every news publication runs a corrections column on a regular basis, because things happen.
The best news-consumption strategy is the same as the best investment strategy: diversification. Read multiple news sources; don't ever just rely on one or two.
Mr. Know-it-some's list is pretty good. I would add the Guardian, The American Prospect, Washington Monthly, and Slate. Maybe CQ and The Hill if you're really into politics. I think if you monitor a wire service, a major national paper (Times, Post, WSJ, USA Today), and a broadcast network (any of the big three, or PBS or NPR), you'll be in good shape.
posted by kevinbelt at 1:01 PM on June 27, 2017 [1 favorite]
The best news-consumption strategy is the same as the best investment strategy: diversification. Read multiple news sources; don't ever just rely on one or two.
Mr. Know-it-some's list is pretty good. I would add the Guardian, The American Prospect, Washington Monthly, and Slate. Maybe CQ and The Hill if you're really into politics. I think if you monitor a wire service, a major national paper (Times, Post, WSJ, USA Today), and a broadcast network (any of the big three, or PBS or NPR), you'll be in good shape.
posted by kevinbelt at 1:01 PM on June 27, 2017 [1 favorite]
This is an excellent question.
The New Yorker is not on that chart, but I find it very reliable. Rolling Stone is pretty reliable. They both do long form articles that are really interesting and give perspective. Fox outright fabricates, has a strong slant on 'news' and has a strong agenda. BBC provides international news. The Globe and Mail, Canadian. I find it really useful to like and follow a bunch of non-US facebook pages. Of the NBC, ABC, CBS, I prefer CBS; they seem to have the least fluff and a more critical approach.
The conventional wisdom is that the NYTimes leans left. Depends on how you define left. They didn't go easy on H Clinton in 2016. They held back from really exposing Trump before the election. They are willing to correct themselves, a great indicator of reliability. The current article, Trump’s Lies is extremely restrained and reported as calmly as possible, albeit they gave it a full page in the print edition. Washington Post and LA Times are very reliably factual.
mediabiasfactcheck.com seems legit. Snopes.com is legit for assessing news sources. One form of bias is the stories that are selected. You may hear facts, but if only the preferred facts are presented, you don't get an accurate picture. PBS does a better job than most of choosing a wide variety of stories. MeFi is a great place to get news, and to find actually fake news debunked.
News is very expensive to generate. Good stories take time to research. Subscribe to news services if you'd like them to be able to continue to exist.
For the most part, I watch CBS, listen to PBS, and read NYTimes.com, and subscribe to the latter 2.
posted by theora55 at 1:05 PM on June 27, 2017 [2 favorites]
The New Yorker is not on that chart, but I find it very reliable. Rolling Stone is pretty reliable. They both do long form articles that are really interesting and give perspective. Fox outright fabricates, has a strong slant on 'news' and has a strong agenda. BBC provides international news. The Globe and Mail, Canadian. I find it really useful to like and follow a bunch of non-US facebook pages. Of the NBC, ABC, CBS, I prefer CBS; they seem to have the least fluff and a more critical approach.
The conventional wisdom is that the NYTimes leans left. Depends on how you define left. They didn't go easy on H Clinton in 2016. They held back from really exposing Trump before the election. They are willing to correct themselves, a great indicator of reliability. The current article, Trump’s Lies is extremely restrained and reported as calmly as possible, albeit they gave it a full page in the print edition. Washington Post and LA Times are very reliably factual.
mediabiasfactcheck.com seems legit. Snopes.com is legit for assessing news sources. One form of bias is the stories that are selected. You may hear facts, but if only the preferred facts are presented, you don't get an accurate picture. PBS does a better job than most of choosing a wide variety of stories. MeFi is a great place to get news, and to find actually fake news debunked.
News is very expensive to generate. Good stories take time to research. Subscribe to news services if you'd like them to be able to continue to exist.
For the most part, I watch CBS, listen to PBS, and read NYTimes.com, and subscribe to the latter 2.
posted by theora55 at 1:05 PM on June 27, 2017 [2 favorites]
I just want to throw my enthusiastic support behind On The Media. They are excellent, and uncompromising.
A fun place to start (a kind of best of, in my opinion) is the wonderful 'Bob grills' series they did, which is a collection of interview between host Bob Garfield and various do-badders.
posted by durandal at 1:22 PM on June 27, 2017
A fun place to start (a kind of best of, in my opinion) is the wonderful 'Bob grills' series they did, which is a collection of interview between host Bob Garfield and various do-badders.
posted by durandal at 1:22 PM on June 27, 2017
Just coming in to shill for the Financial Times, which has really high-quality reporting. Even the letters to the editor are worth reading. Also, not as daily-newsey, but The New Yorker is famous for their factchecking.
posted by triggerfinger at 1:34 PM on June 27, 2017 [2 favorites]
posted by triggerfinger at 1:34 PM on June 27, 2017 [2 favorites]
You may also want to rethink your definition of "trust." There is nowhere on earth you can get the whole complete and perfect truth on a daily basis on every topic. Always read with your critical-thinking brain engaged, and understand that even very responsible outlets have biases they are aware of and biases they aren't aware of, as do readers.
For me, the key things in a news source are (a) evidence is given for the claims of fact, and that evidence is verifiable elsewhere; (b) the outlet has a track record of being above reproach almost all of the time (even our best sources have made mistakes now and then), and (c) a practice of "accountability journalism," meaning they will solicit and air alternative views on a topic, they will listen to and print reader response, and they will correct themselves publicly when a mistake is made and alter their reporting strategies accordingly, and in a transparent way.
posted by Miko at 1:47 PM on June 27, 2017
For me, the key things in a news source are (a) evidence is given for the claims of fact, and that evidence is verifiable elsewhere; (b) the outlet has a track record of being above reproach almost all of the time (even our best sources have made mistakes now and then), and (c) a practice of "accountability journalism," meaning they will solicit and air alternative views on a topic, they will listen to and print reader response, and they will correct themselves publicly when a mistake is made and alter their reporting strategies accordingly, and in a transparent way.
posted by Miko at 1:47 PM on June 27, 2017
Rather than talk about specific media outlets, I'll instead suggest that you don't reinvent the wheel--the search term you're looking for is 'media literacy.'
posted by box at 2:38 PM on June 27, 2017 [1 favorite]
posted by box at 2:38 PM on June 27, 2017 [1 favorite]
There is also a journalism project that covers bias, likely racial bias in media coverage and....all my brain is only able to come up with The [last name, but-not-Marshall] Project. It's been discussed on the blue, too, if that is an area you'd like clarity on - one of the Journalism Schools was connected with it, I believe.
posted by childofTethys at 7:27 PM on June 27, 2017
posted by childofTethys at 7:27 PM on June 27, 2017
I am a fan of keeping an eye on a diverse set of sources, so I am a big user of Memeorandum. Memeorandum aggregates links from a wide variety of sources from across the political spectrum, and the longer you use it, I think the better you will be at evaluating news sources. Since the grouping is topical, you will start to see patterns in how topics are covered, who covers what topics, etc. Then you can make your own decisions about what sources are more trustworthy, yet still keep tabs on the rest of the ecosystem.
posted by odin53 at 8:43 PM on June 27, 2017
posted by odin53 at 8:43 PM on June 27, 2017
In 1908 an organization got into the newspaper business. They'd been on the recieving end of the sensational, blown out of proportion, truth be damned journalism of the day. After coming to consider it a public nuisance, they offered an alternative. They're still at it in daily and weekly versions.
The farther one is from the middle of the political spectrum, the less one will like their take on the news, IMHO, because they acknowledge more than one viewpoint exists and believe understanding views other than one's own is beneficial.
Don't be put of by the site's parent organization. It's not easy to find anything about them on the website.
posted by Homer42 at 2:20 AM on June 28, 2017
The farther one is from the middle of the political spectrum, the less one will like their take on the news, IMHO, because they acknowledge more than one viewpoint exists and believe understanding views other than one's own is beneficial.
Don't be put of by the site's parent organization. It's not easy to find anything about them on the website.
posted by Homer42 at 2:20 AM on June 28, 2017
Don't forget that all sources, good, bad, and the ugly, run articles under such headings as "blogs" "opinions" "analysis" and "editorials" that may or may not conform to the standards set by the main branch of the news reporting. A lot of bias and spin appears in these sections.
posted by Jacen at 1:08 PM on June 28, 2017
posted by Jacen at 1:08 PM on June 28, 2017
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by childofTethys at 11:28 AM on June 27, 2017 [4 favorites]