Read on Twitter
Thread: This tweet from Robert Barnes sparks me to write about how I look at information sources. https://twitter.com/Barnes_Law/status/1284539300768624642?s=20
First of all, I’ll read anything. I don’t care what publication it is, whether or not they have an obvious bias, or whether or not they have a reputation for accuracy. That’s because I believe you can find nuggets of information in the least expected places.
If I run across some claim about a Republican politician, for example, I’m not going to go to conservative sources first. I’m going to read liberal sources. Why? Because, as Robert points out, who’s more likely to report negative news about someone? Their friends or enemies?
Mind you, I’m going to read that source with a critical eye, because I know they have a bias. But, when they make a factual claim, I can search for that and see if there is any corroboration for it. If I don’t find any, I put it in the unresolved pile.
I also apply the “smell test” to articles. Does it smell like the truth? Or is it more likely to be untrue? There are very few sources that I will reject out of hand. Those would be people like Noam Chomsky, who has been proven to lie so much that there’s no point in reading him.
There are a few others, but not many. When I read an article, I always read the entire article. That’s because the truth is usually buried far down in the article. It often refutes the title of the article. So it’s important to read them all the way through.
This is always the case except for exceedingly long articles that bore me to tears. Those I will often discard after reading a third to a half. Most writers put what they want you to know in the first half, so you won’t miss much.
And usually, those kind of writers love the sound of their own voice. Which is why they are so boring. Often I will find a statement in an article that I want to corroborate, and that will take me on a journey to unintended places. I’ll often bookmark those for later research.
One thing I have learned is to never take anything at face value. The first story I ever wrote about was an AP article that reported a meteor strike in Washington state. The entire article was false, which I was able to determine in about 30 minutes. AP pulled the article later.
Always keep this in mind. If they’ll print fake news about a meteor, how likely are they to print fake news about politics? Or anything else that’s even remotely political in nature? Use Reagan’s test. Trust but verify. Assume it’s true. Then confirm that it is. Or isn’t.
What bugs me more than anything is when people say Oh, that’s Faux News. No point in reading it. What that tells me is that they have ZERO interest in the truth. If you say the same thing about Huffington Post, for example, then rethink your strategy.
You’ll learn a lot more that way. And be a lot more confident about what you believe.
