"If we don’t have the time or inclination to verify with reliable sources, we shouldn’t reshare information on the internet." 📣 Say it louder for the people in the back!! 📣
It’s shocking how few Americans know how to verify a source and do basic confirmation research. I think there are a few things at play here. Distrust in long held institutions has been perpetuated and some people just want to feel outraged all the time and swim upstream. It’s become their identity.
THIS ‼️ "If we value being right, the best way to do that is to *stop being wrong faster.* And that might mean changing your mind when presented with new and better information."
This is such beautiful framing: focus on being curious to be right, rather than being afraid to be wrong.
Often it seems like there is so much shame wrapped up in being wrong, especially on a public stage. Imdividuals stay stubborn in the wrong because they are too afraid to admit they are not right.
If we collectively made more space for people to be wrong and praised them for changing their minds when presented with new information, perhaps there would be less shame and stigma around having an open mind. Instead it seems people are either labeled as ignorant, flip-floppers, or late comers. If we reject people for ever being wrong, for changing their minds, or for arriving at the right place "too late," it's easy to understand why people would rather stay in their circle of belonging among others who are stubbornly or willfully wrong.
This might be a good time to point out that there's a huge difference between "looking something up", and actually "researching something." When reading 'news' on social media sites, I often have trouble trusting the source when they appear to have confused the two. Research involves vetting the source(s) from which the facts are derived/disseminated. So often, people pass off information that they claim/imply has been 'researched'...when, in fact, they just 'googled' it, and re-posted the first hit that supported their opinion.
This is a really good thing to keep in mind! Especially when one source is summarizing a poll, study, or review conducted by someone else. Go to the data source and see if that summary is accurately representing what the actual source says; this is a BIG problem in the health & wellness space where studies that might show loose correlation between one factor and a health outcome are then interpreted to mean a direct (and often dire) causal link between that factor and your health. That kind of poor reporting can really undermine public credibility.
Are there really any trustworthy sources though in which to even research? I mean, I have almost come to the point to where I don’t trust anyone. Like, anyone. Everyone has an underlying motivation. For example- even if an “unbiased” journalist/influencer/expert dislikes (or even hates) a candidate because of XY, they more than likely aren’t going to report something positive about them or report something that’s been falsely accused. It’s all becoming so polarizing.
I want to echo that you are getting to the heart of something, which is that "unbiased" simply does not exist: every human being is biased. Every source written or created by human beings is biased. If we're looking for an unbiased person, we'll never find them (not even ourselves). But as Sharon says, a bias is not the same thing as lying. The best we can do is to find sources that are *aware* of their biases and actively digging in to the things that they disagree with, engaging with sources that counter their own leanings, etc; the second best thing we can do is to cultivate a wide variety of sources so that we can start to clearly see and put pieces together where one source's bias ends and another's begins.
Primary Sources. Where the information in the news story comes from. Is that an event where you can watch the original video, a decision from the Supreme Court where you can read the decision itself, a Congressional vote where you can read the verbiage and see how each person voted, see an interview that the story is about. Reading other news stories about the same thing can help put together a story of the bias each side has (everyone has bias) and what the various sides have taken away from those primary sources.
It certainly isn't easy. Yes, everyone (seemingly) has an underlying bias. What we have to discern is whether the expression of bias is a primary purpose of the article, with the intent to influence your opinion...or is it simply a benign component for congenial purposes. I think influential bias is self-explanatory, so no need to elaborate. As for 'benign' bias--I offer this example: Meteorologists will often begin or end their forecast with a statement akin to, "It's gonna be a beautiful day tomorrow." This, referring to "Sunny, with a high of 85-degrees, and no rain." They're expressing their personal bias for this 'type' of day. No intent to influence anyone else's opinion. Once we discern that a particular reporter/network, etc. has intentional bias--then we have to determine to what degree. (Admittedly, this is the most difficult part.) The greater the motivation to influence--the more likely the article to resort to mis/dis-information. Here's what I do. Actively look for bias while reading an article. Are generalized statements followed up by specific, evidentiary statements? Does the data make sense? Do they support their opinions with words of absolution (e.g. All, None, Always, Never), or hyper-editorialize (e.g. Crazy, Stupid, Wonderful, Great, Awful)? I would also argue that these words/terms don't necessarily represent extreme bias in reporting. I don't really believe that people truly 'want' "just the facts" in the purest sense of the term. I think it's probably okay for a reporter to call a hurricane that results in multiple deaths "a horrible tragedy," rather than saying, "hurricane bob struck the coast of boboland yesterday, killing 300 people"...then moving abruptly to the next set of facts. However, were they to spend the next 20-minutes outlining the impact of global warning (which I, personally would condone)--then it would be an example of bias reporting.
When I read something (usually online) that seems a little off, I will check a major publication to see if/what they are reporting. I’ve done this several times with my elderly father to show him that no, that crazy thing you read about in that forwarded email is not true!
Realizing I’m not Sharon 🤣 I used the graph from Adfontes Media she shared in a past preamble and chose a few sources. You can also get an email digest from places like AP News. I think you can set the frequency but I can’t remember! And I started grabbing our local, weekly paper. We’re a small community so we also have a local radio station which does super local news, like Sally’s dog got lost, and I find it interesting to see what they’re reporting during news segments too.
I would suggest following Mo News on Instagram as he reports just facts. His daily podcast is great as well. I also follow the premium account but you get a lot on the free one https://www.instagram.com/mosheh?igsh=MWRoYnJob2VzODJlMg==
I tend to read CNN and FOX to compare how they report on things (Fox is all sensationalized and is way right wing), and follow Mosh and Sharon. I don’t want to digest too much of the news or it impacts me in negative ways. So I skip through a lot of the slides just seeking what matters to me now like the election.
As someone who is a liberal, I have found that the Dispatch is a conservative news source that I can learn a lot from. They are a group of conservative never Trumpers but I trust their overall reporting and while I often don’t agree with them on many issues, I can at least understand where they are coming from. What is interesting is to see the areas where I actually can find common ground.
The key factor that makes the Dispatch a good resource is not that they aren't “biased” but that they are arguing in good faith, are clear about their perspective, and base their arguments on reality (even if they come to different conclusions than I do). Their Morning Dispatch newsletter is really great overview of news stories plus a deep dive or two into specific issues.
Just thought I would throw that out there, because as a liberal I’ve found it can be hard to find conservative POVs that don’t trigger me (bless you for being able to engage with Fox News!)
Ageee on the Dispatch! ALL sources have bias, so I also love your distinction between bias and good faith. (And I don’t want to consume much from the extreme of EITHER side!)
The other nice thing is the Dispatch newsletter isn't every day. I can't keep up with some newsletters. I enjoy Mo News but find listening to him is easier than reading him for instance ever single day!
But just because he's left leaning doesn't mean he isn't reporting facts. Just means it's important to follow others who might report facts in a different way as well!
Moshe explained the way Adfontes bases their rankings. It is a brief period of time and it just happened to coincide with an interview he did with someone from the left.
Interesting! I missed his ranking but saw Sharon’s, also a tiny bit left which surprised me! But as Adfontes says, they do their ratings per week, so Sharon and Mosh may rank different a month from now.
I haven't checked out Mo News, but in general I think it's fine for a news source to have a lean -- in fact it's very hard for one not too. I'm not a centrist, which means that I have an obvious lean myself, and it can help me better understand and articulate my views to read analysis with the same slant as mine. It's just important to remember that analysis is analysis, and when you read it, you need to consistently pressure test the arguments.
I believe in the past, Sharon has mentioned AP News, Reuters, CNN, Fox News, Wall Street Journal, New York Times, etc. No need to check every site every day, but it’s good to check multiple throughout the week.
Also want to mention that pay attention to whether it's Fox News/CNN TV or the website. I believe they all rank differently, like the TV shows can be more opinion and less fact based.
Let’s remember the large segments of Americans whose main source of news comes from social media and its influencers. Much more difficult to vet those sources, and the onslaught of video clips many folks view each day often results in an effective drip campaign for one-sided perspectives.
This is the tricky thing…I just filled out a survey that asked me where I got my news and one of the sources I selected was social media influencers because I do get a lot of my news from Sharon, MoNews, Jessica Yellin, and Yashar Ali. But I felt weird doing it because not all social media influencers are the same!
I feel the same way! I often think “how do I know this thing? Well Sharon told me, so it’s true 🤣”. I do need to be better about getting more sources, even though we all know Sharon is as reliable as it gets 😘
I do the hair of a sweet 88-year-old woman who gets all of her information from Fox News. When she brings up a preposterous story which frames our current president in a very negative manner, I respectfully say, "I have heard nothing about that, and it may not be correct - how about I look it up?" When I do, there may sometimes be a tiny bit of truth to the story, but plenty of context I can kindly share with my elderly friend. We both learn something, and we happily move on to the next subject! ❤️
I read multiple sources of news. It’s so easy to see the bias (in my opinion), so I try to compare the articles and just take in the factual parts. I also check to see if an article is “opinion”. Opinions are not facts. I follow Mo and @smarthernews Jenna does a great job of just giving the facts and she doesn’t overwhelm with every stupid story out there.
Thank you, Sharon, for this information. It’s so important. But, a change of subject here: I want to know more about “1,000 Japanese balloon bombs that were floated over the Pacific and landed on the West Coast during WWII.” I have never heard about this piece of history. Is it possible for you to do a deep dive on this?
Propaganda is destroying our country, and sadly even those sources that claim they are “unbiased” use propaganda unknowingly and knowingly. Following and getting news from multiple sides is so important.
I imagine this article would be a lot more difficult to write based on Israel and Palestine, but the propaganda issues and the bias issues there are plentiful. Also, sometimes the bias is not immediately evident; it is reflected in what news is covered or not.
We recently chatted with a county supervisor that said there is a group of people who constantly come to their meetings and spew propaganda. More recently he confronted one of the women in a meeting that apparently made the news after asking her do you think Russian elections are fair? And the answer was yes from this woman. I most definitely believe Russian propaganda is here and is being believed.
"If we don’t have the time or inclination to verify with reliable sources, we shouldn’t reshare information on the internet." 📣 Say it louder for the people in the back!! 📣
This is such a good reminder. I've gotten lazy about this at times and need to double down and be more consistent with it.
There’s no more powerful confirmation bias than that share button!
It’s shocking how few Americans know how to verify a source and do basic confirmation research. I think there are a few things at play here. Distrust in long held institutions has been perpetuated and some people just want to feel outraged all the time and swim upstream. It’s become their identity.
THIS ‼️ "If we value being right, the best way to do that is to *stop being wrong faster.* And that might mean changing your mind when presented with new and better information."
This is such beautiful framing: focus on being curious to be right, rather than being afraid to be wrong.
Often it seems like there is so much shame wrapped up in being wrong, especially on a public stage. Imdividuals stay stubborn in the wrong because they are too afraid to admit they are not right.
If we collectively made more space for people to be wrong and praised them for changing their minds when presented with new information, perhaps there would be less shame and stigma around having an open mind. Instead it seems people are either labeled as ignorant, flip-floppers, or late comers. If we reject people for ever being wrong, for changing their minds, or for arriving at the right place "too late," it's easy to understand why people would rather stay in their circle of belonging among others who are stubbornly or willfully wrong.
This might be a good time to point out that there's a huge difference between "looking something up", and actually "researching something." When reading 'news' on social media sites, I often have trouble trusting the source when they appear to have confused the two. Research involves vetting the source(s) from which the facts are derived/disseminated. So often, people pass off information that they claim/imply has been 'researched'...when, in fact, they just 'googled' it, and re-posted the first hit that supported their opinion.
This is a really good thing to keep in mind! Especially when one source is summarizing a poll, study, or review conducted by someone else. Go to the data source and see if that summary is accurately representing what the actual source says; this is a BIG problem in the health & wellness space where studies that might show loose correlation between one factor and a health outcome are then interpreted to mean a direct (and often dire) causal link between that factor and your health. That kind of poor reporting can really undermine public credibility.
Are there really any trustworthy sources though in which to even research? I mean, I have almost come to the point to where I don’t trust anyone. Like, anyone. Everyone has an underlying motivation. For example- even if an “unbiased” journalist/influencer/expert dislikes (or even hates) a candidate because of XY, they more than likely aren’t going to report something positive about them or report something that’s been falsely accused. It’s all becoming so polarizing.
I want to echo that you are getting to the heart of something, which is that "unbiased" simply does not exist: every human being is biased. Every source written or created by human beings is biased. If we're looking for an unbiased person, we'll never find them (not even ourselves). But as Sharon says, a bias is not the same thing as lying. The best we can do is to find sources that are *aware* of their biases and actively digging in to the things that they disagree with, engaging with sources that counter their own leanings, etc; the second best thing we can do is to cultivate a wide variety of sources so that we can start to clearly see and put pieces together where one source's bias ends and another's begins.
Primary Sources. Where the information in the news story comes from. Is that an event where you can watch the original video, a decision from the Supreme Court where you can read the decision itself, a Congressional vote where you can read the verbiage and see how each person voted, see an interview that the story is about. Reading other news stories about the same thing can help put together a story of the bias each side has (everyone has bias) and what the various sides have taken away from those primary sources.
It certainly isn't easy. Yes, everyone (seemingly) has an underlying bias. What we have to discern is whether the expression of bias is a primary purpose of the article, with the intent to influence your opinion...or is it simply a benign component for congenial purposes. I think influential bias is self-explanatory, so no need to elaborate. As for 'benign' bias--I offer this example: Meteorologists will often begin or end their forecast with a statement akin to, "It's gonna be a beautiful day tomorrow." This, referring to "Sunny, with a high of 85-degrees, and no rain." They're expressing their personal bias for this 'type' of day. No intent to influence anyone else's opinion. Once we discern that a particular reporter/network, etc. has intentional bias--then we have to determine to what degree. (Admittedly, this is the most difficult part.) The greater the motivation to influence--the more likely the article to resort to mis/dis-information. Here's what I do. Actively look for bias while reading an article. Are generalized statements followed up by specific, evidentiary statements? Does the data make sense? Do they support their opinions with words of absolution (e.g. All, None, Always, Never), or hyper-editorialize (e.g. Crazy, Stupid, Wonderful, Great, Awful)? I would also argue that these words/terms don't necessarily represent extreme bias in reporting. I don't really believe that people truly 'want' "just the facts" in the purest sense of the term. I think it's probably okay for a reporter to call a hurricane that results in multiple deaths "a horrible tragedy," rather than saying, "hurricane bob struck the coast of boboland yesterday, killing 300 people"...then moving abruptly to the next set of facts. However, were they to spend the next 20-minutes outlining the impact of global warning (which I, personally would condone)--then it would be an example of bias reporting.
When I read something (usually online) that seems a little off, I will check a major publication to see if/what they are reporting. I’ve done this several times with my elderly father to show him that no, that crazy thing you read about in that forwarded email is not true!
And here I thought propaganda was when a British person took a really good look at something
Or someone from Boston 😉
It took me a minute… 😂
Just curious, when you say it’s important to read from a variety of sources, what sources do you read from?
Realizing I’m not Sharon 🤣 I used the graph from Adfontes Media she shared in a past preamble and chose a few sources. You can also get an email digest from places like AP News. I think you can set the frequency but I can’t remember! And I started grabbing our local, weekly paper. We’re a small community so we also have a local radio station which does super local news, like Sally’s dog got lost, and I find it interesting to see what they’re reporting during news segments too.
I would suggest following Mo News on Instagram as he reports just facts. His daily podcast is great as well. I also follow the premium account but you get a lot on the free one https://www.instagram.com/mosheh?igsh=MWRoYnJob2VzODJlMg==
I tend to read CNN and FOX to compare how they report on things (Fox is all sensationalized and is way right wing), and follow Mosh and Sharon. I don’t want to digest too much of the news or it impacts me in negative ways. So I skip through a lot of the slides just seeking what matters to me now like the election.
As someone who is a liberal, I have found that the Dispatch is a conservative news source that I can learn a lot from. They are a group of conservative never Trumpers but I trust their overall reporting and while I often don’t agree with them on many issues, I can at least understand where they are coming from. What is interesting is to see the areas where I actually can find common ground.
The key factor that makes the Dispatch a good resource is not that they aren't “biased” but that they are arguing in good faith, are clear about their perspective, and base their arguments on reality (even if they come to different conclusions than I do). Their Morning Dispatch newsletter is really great overview of news stories plus a deep dive or two into specific issues.
Just thought I would throw that out there, because as a liberal I’ve found it can be hard to find conservative POVs that don’t trigger me (bless you for being able to engage with Fox News!)
Writing briefly to say I like how you draw a distinction between non-bias and good faith. That’s an important signal to look for
Ageee on the Dispatch! ALL sources have bias, so I also love your distinction between bias and good faith. (And I don’t want to consume much from the extreme of EITHER side!)
The other nice thing is the Dispatch newsletter isn't every day. I can't keep up with some newsletters. I enjoy Mo News but find listening to him is easier than reading him for instance ever single day!
I love Mo News and follow him, but I believe his rating on Adfontes did have his bias left leaning.
But just because he's left leaning doesn't mean he isn't reporting facts. Just means it's important to follow others who might report facts in a different way as well!
Moshe explained the way Adfontes bases their rankings. It is a brief period of time and it just happened to coincide with an interview he did with someone from the left.
Interesting! I missed his ranking but saw Sharon’s, also a tiny bit left which surprised me! But as Adfontes says, they do their ratings per week, so Sharon and Mosh may rank different a month from now.
Oh 100% he’s highly reliable but slightly left bias.
I haven't checked out Mo News, but in general I think it's fine for a news source to have a lean -- in fact it's very hard for one not too. I'm not a centrist, which means that I have an obvious lean myself, and it can help me better understand and articulate my views to read analysis with the same slant as mine. It's just important to remember that analysis is analysis, and when you read it, you need to consistently pressure test the arguments.
I believe in the past, Sharon has mentioned AP News, Reuters, CNN, Fox News, Wall Street Journal, New York Times, etc. No need to check every site every day, but it’s good to check multiple throughout the week.
Also want to mention that pay attention to whether it's Fox News/CNN TV or the website. I believe they all rank differently, like the TV shows can be more opinion and less fact based.
Let’s remember the large segments of Americans whose main source of news comes from social media and its influencers. Much more difficult to vet those sources, and the onslaught of video clips many folks view each day often results in an effective drip campaign for one-sided perspectives.
This is the tricky thing…I just filled out a survey that asked me where I got my news and one of the sources I selected was social media influencers because I do get a lot of my news from Sharon, MoNews, Jessica Yellin, and Yashar Ali. But I felt weird doing it because not all social media influencers are the same!
I feel the same way! I often think “how do I know this thing? Well Sharon told me, so it’s true 🤣”. I do need to be better about getting more sources, even though we all know Sharon is as reliable as it gets 😘
I do the hair of a sweet 88-year-old woman who gets all of her information from Fox News. When she brings up a preposterous story which frames our current president in a very negative manner, I respectfully say, "I have heard nothing about that, and it may not be correct - how about I look it up?" When I do, there may sometimes be a tiny bit of truth to the story, but plenty of context I can kindly share with my elderly friend. We both learn something, and we happily move on to the next subject! ❤️
I read multiple sources of news. It’s so easy to see the bias (in my opinion), so I try to compare the articles and just take in the factual parts. I also check to see if an article is “opinion”. Opinions are not facts. I follow Mo and @smarthernews Jenna does a great job of just giving the facts and she doesn’t overwhelm with every stupid story out there.
I 🩵 Jenna!
Love Jenna!
Thank you, Sharon, for this information. It’s so important. But, a change of subject here: I want to know more about “1,000 Japanese balloon bombs that were floated over the Pacific and landed on the West Coast during WWII.” I have never heard about this piece of history. Is it possible for you to do a deep dive on this?
Propaganda is destroying our country, and sadly even those sources that claim they are “unbiased” use propaganda unknowingly and knowingly. Following and getting news from multiple sides is so important.
Sharon, I wonder why nothing is being done about bots?! There has GOT to be a way to identify and get rid of them, no!? It is so frustrating.
According to Pew Research, 1/3 of people ages 29 and under are getting their news from TikTok - https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/11/15/more-americans-are-getting-news-on-tiktok-bucking-the-trend-seen-on-most-other-social-media-sites/ - and that algorithm is pretty aggressive in sharing content similar to what you've already viewed. Another argument for sourcing news from multiple outlets beyond social media.
I imagine this article would be a lot more difficult to write based on Israel and Palestine, but the propaganda issues and the bias issues there are plentiful. Also, sometimes the bias is not immediately evident; it is reflected in what news is covered or not.
We recently chatted with a county supervisor that said there is a group of people who constantly come to their meetings and spew propaganda. More recently he confronted one of the women in a meeting that apparently made the news after asking her do you think Russian elections are fair? And the answer was yes from this woman. I most definitely believe Russian propaganda is here and is being believed.