How to think critically about what the media is telling you?

[jross]

A critical thinker can go to any major news site and immediately find false information plus bias across multiple articles.  My kids didn't believe me but they can also do it.  Fox News is the most obvious but ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, etc. all have problems.

Who benefits?  What language and framing is used?  What stories are reported and important, not reported?  What information in the story is omitted?  How much opinion, anonymous source, and speculation is included?  Are you reading someone's slanted interpretation or evidence-based facts and drawing your own conclusion?  What is the background and history behind a story that can provide a deeper understanding and prevent misinterpretation?  

To think critically:

• Ask Questions: Who, what, why, when, and how?
• Evaluate Sources: Check credibility and biases.
• Analyze Evidence: Is it relevant, sufficient, and strong?
• Consider Perspectives: Explore and be open to different viewpoints.
• Use Logic: Ensure arguments are consistent and avoid fallacies.
• Reflect: Consider implications and stay open-minded.

-----------

Feel free to added tips on thinking critically.

Feel free to point out and discuss problems in specific news articles.

Edited August 13 by jross

[headshuck]

[Bigbrog]

3 minutes ago, jross said:

A critical thinker can go to any major news site and immediately find false information plus bias across multiple articles.  My kids didn't believe me but they can also do it.  Fox News is the most obvious but ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, etc. all have problems.

Who benefits?  What language and framing is used?  What stories are reported and important, not reported?  What information in the story is omitted?  How much opinion, anonymous source, and speculation is included?  Are you reading someone's slanted interpretation or evidence-based facts and drawing your own conclusion?  What is the background and history behind a story that can provide a deeper understanding and prevent misinterpretation?  

To think critically:

• Ask Questions: Who, what, why, when, and how?
• Evaluate Sources: Check credibility and biases.
• Analyze Evidence: Is it relevant, sufficient, and strong?
• Consider Perspectives: Explore and be open to different viewpoints.
• Use Logic: Ensure arguments are consistent and avoid fallacies.
• Reflect: Consider implications and stay open-minded.

-----------

Feel free to added tips on thinking critically.

Feel free to point out and discuss problems in specific news articles.

I am so glad my son is able to do this at a fairly young age!!

[red viking]

It's pretty simple. We're not experts on what is biased and what isn't. Rely on the experts to determine more reliable news sources and get most of your info from those sources. My "go to's" are Reuters and BNO News. From my experience, the more "boring" sources are generally the most accurate. The more entertaining and alarming sources are garbage. 

[ionel]

I dont always engage in critical thinking

But when I do

I use red viking as my source

Keep reflecting my friends.

 

[Danny Deck]

21 minutes ago, red viking said:

It's pretty simple. We're not experts on what is biased and what isn't. Rely on the experts to determine more reliable news sources and get most of your info from those sources. My "go to's" are Reuters and BNO News. From my experience, the more "boring" sources are generally the most accurate. The more entertaining and alarming sources are garbage. 

This is one thing that is difficult in the digitalization of media. In a real deal newspaper, it feels a lot more clear what's opinion vs (supposed to be) hard news. And then once you get on Twitter or FB or whatever, it's even more difficult because you're further divorced from the source likely reading someone's interpretation of someone else's opinion article. 

This happens on TV as well. Where no one gets that upset usually with the actual news programs but instead all of the opinion ones, but the difference between the goals of Special Report with Bret Baier and The Ingraham Angle aren't that clear. (I'll say looking things up Fox News does a much better job of blurbing their shows than MSNBC to get at what's news vs opinion.)

 

[red viking]

1 minute ago, Danny Deck said:

This is one thing that is difficult in the digitalization of media. In a real deal newspaper, it feels a lot more clear what's opinion vs (supposed to be) hard news. And then once you get on Twitter or FB or whatever, it's even more difficult because you're further divorced from the source likely reading someone's interpretation of someone else's opinion article. 

This happens on TV as well. Where no one gets that upset usually with the actual news programs but instead all of the opinion ones, but the difference between the goals of Special Report with Bret Baier and The Ingraham Angle aren't that clear. (I'll say looking things up Fox News does a much better job of blurbing their shows than MSNBC to get at what's news vs opinion.)

 

Anybody that utilizes Fox as their main source of news is going to inevitably be delusional, no matter how smart they otherwise are. 

[jross]

Even when the articles report "just the facts"...  the article title, article choice, and fact selection is problematic.

• 8/13: Fox News: Front page article title: "Harris responds after Trump unleashes a scathing attack, branding her a 'radical-left lunatic'"
  • Problem: Emotionally loaded language, sensational, lack context
  • Neutral Title: "Harris responds to Trump's criticism."
• 8/13: CNN: Front page article title: "A CNN investigation shows that a startup connected to JD Vance failed as a business and provided a ‘nightmare’ work environment for employees"
  • Problem: implied bias - a very negative portrayal right from the start, loaded language, lack of specificity
  • Neutral Title: “CNN Investigation: JD Vance-Backed AppHarvest Startup Company Faces Business Challenges and Employee Complaints”

[jross]

PBS Article Review:

Source: An article highlighted by @RockLobster as one of the reputable sources debunking the claim that Tim Walz retired after learning of his deployment. The article, titled “Fact-checking attacks on Walz’s military record by Vance and other Republicans,” originally appeared on PolitiFact.

Issue: The fact-check labels the claim as “mostly false,” but a closer examination of the evidence suggests it is “mostly true.”

Key Points:

1. Awareness of Deployment: The press release indicates that Walz was aware of the potential for deployment.
2. Communication with Unit: Walz informed his unit that deployment was highly likely.
3. Commitment to Duty: The press release also emphasizes Walz’s commitment to his unit, even if deployed to Iraq.
4. Retirement Circumstances: Walz circumvented his superior to secure retirement before completing his intended service.
5. Concerns About Perception: Walz questioned a unit member, asking if soldiers would view him negatively for not deploying, potentially seeing it as an attempt to avoid deployment.
6. Unit’s Reaction: Multiple members of Walz’s unit criticized his character and actions.

[ionel]

1 hour ago, red viking said:

Anybody that utilizes Fox as their main source of news is going to inevitably be delusional, no matter how smart they otherwise are. 

You must watch a lot of Fox. 

[jross]

The best thing about X.com is better access to the primary source in raw form via video.  Rather than blindly believing the media spin, you can listen and form your own opinion.  And then you have community notes.

[Offthemat]

15 minutes ago, jross said:

The best thing about X.com is better access to the primary source in raw form via video.  Rather than blindly believing the media spin, you can listen and form your own opinion.  And then you have community notes.

That’s like intentionally cutting out the ‘expert’ middleman.  Hmmm.

[jross]

Experts like this?

The Washington Post’s Cleve Wootson: “One more, Elon Musk is slated to interview Donald Trump tomorrow — tonight on — on X. I don't know if the president is going to — feel free to say if he is or not — but I — I think that misinformation on Twitter is not just a campaign issue. It's a — you know, it's an America issue. What role does the White House or the President have any sort of stopping that or stopping the spread of that or sort of inter — intervening in that. Some of that was about campaign misinformation, but you know it's a wider thing, right?”

 

[Offthemat]

49 minutes ago, jross said:

Experts like this?

The Washington Post’s Cleve Wootson: “One more, Elon Musk is slated to interview Donald Trump tomorrow — tonight on — on X. I don't know if the president is going to — feel free to say if he is or not — but I — I think that misinformation on Twitter is not just a campaign issue. It's a — you know, it's an America issue. What role does the White House or the President have any sort of stopping that or stopping the spread of that or sort of inter — intervening in that. Some of that was about campaign misinformation, but you know it's a wider thing, right?”

 

Yes. 

[red viking]

social media is a horrible way to get accurate news. Yes, you may get "balanced" information, but it will be all over the place and everywhere in between and really you'll end up having to arbitrarily decide what to accept as the truth unless you have hours to decide which information is false. 

You're better off getting your information from something that is truly more objective and filters out the crap ahead of time. 

[Bigbrog]

13 minutes ago, red viking said:

social media is a horrible way to get accurate news. Yes, you may get "balanced" information, but it will be all over the place and everywhere in between and really you'll end up having to arbitrarily decide what to accept as the truth unless you have hours to decide which information is false. 

You're better off getting your information from something that is truly more objective and filters out the crap ahead of time. 

I don't necessarily disagree with what you are saying here; other than I would be careful of the "filters" that are applied to remove things.  I would rather what is filtered out is news sites and their reporters adding their "analysis" which is nothing more than their biased opinions, and just giving the facts and sources to go find out more information about the subject they are reporting on.

[jross]

Yes, even Reuters with their policy of taking a "value-neutral approach"...

8/13: "Rambling Trump, Musk interview marred by tech issues"

• Problem: bias and subjectivity in article title word choice, and the title misleads on the article content
• Problem: article has bias in the coverage of Harris, selective framing, lack of nuance...

Reuters normally does a good job... but not always.  Same with the AP.

[jross]

A critical thinker should apply the same process to social media posts as they do with news media.  

Copy/pasting what your expert has told you to think is a sign...  bubbles

This lady is LOW IQ... unaware she is regurgitating shit why claiming others are shit.

 

[red viking]

1 hour ago, jross said:

Yes, even Reuters with their policy of taking a "value-neutral approach"...

8/13: "Rambling Trump, Musk interview marred by tech issues"

• Problem: bias and subjectivity in article title word choice, and the title misleads on the article content
• Problem: article has bias in the coverage of Harris, selective framing, lack of nuance...

Reuters normally does a good job... but not always.  Same with the AP.

Yah; I get it. Anybody that says anything bad about Trump has an anti-GOP agenda. 

[jross]

39 minutes ago, red viking said:

Yah; I get it. Anybody that says anything bad about Trump has an anti-GOP agenda. 

This same shit occurs on a variety of topics, celebrities, politicians, etc.

Your choice: pick the OP instructions to raise your IQ or leverage this list to thicken your bubble.

[jross]

49 minutes ago, red viking said:

Yah; I get it. Anybody that says anything bad about Trump has an anti-GOP agenda. 

Your speech is an example of media spin.

RV the Journalist: "Anybody that says anything bad about Trump has an anti-GOP agenda."

• Problem: over generalization, bias, lack of nuance, misleading...
• RV just made this shit up.

[Scouts Honor]

7 hours ago, red viking said:

It's pretty simple. We're not experts on what is biased and what isn't. Rely on the experts to determine more reliable news sources and get most of your info from those sources. My "go to's" are Reuters and BNO News. From my experience, the more "boring" sources are generally the most accurate. The more entertaining and alarming sources are garbage. 

the 'experts' are often biased

[Scouts Honor]

3 hours ago, red viking said:

social media is a horrible way to get accurate news. Yes, you may get "balanced" information, but it will be all over the place and everywhere in between and really you'll end up having to arbitrarily decide what to accept as the truth unless you have hours to decide which information is false. 

You're better off getting your information from something that is truly more objective and filters out the crap ahead of time. 

so seeing a video of someone speaking is a bad way to tell how they feel about the issues?

you would rather someone tell you how to think about what they said? 

[Scouts Honor]

1 hour ago, red viking said:

Yah; I get it. Anybody that says anything bad about Trump has an anti-GOP agenda. 

yet you dont get it

[Scouts Honor]

we dont hate the media enough