Addition!
If its financed by a less than democratic government or has ties to them the source is invalid.
That’s covered under “Consider the source.”
The source having ties to a non-democratic government does not automatically invalidate the source, but it should make you scrutinize it more sceptically in relation to the other criteria.
It does invalidate the source. And its not exactly covered
-
In what way is it not covered, according to you?
-
If the news story is, e.g., non-political, does not try to influence your opinion on something, and is based on first-party facts that can be independently verified and that are correctly represented, the source does not matter for the factuality of the news story, even if it is from a non-democratic source.
What is non political? What doesn’t want to influence you when it’s from a dictatorship government “news source”
Its not covered, there is nothing about the funding of the News, the contact info and mission they say they have isn’t saying anything about who funds it, for some “news” its pretty hard to find out who is actually behind them. Especially regarding topics about china or middle east, or climate change where big oil is literally funding a BS campaigns.
You should search explicitly for discrediting information about a source and then decide if thats plausible and important for the article you read.
Example: https://www.rt.com/pop-culture/600410-germany-gelsenkirchen-renamed-taylor-swift/
Except for the final paragraph, it is very non-political, and easily verifiable to be true.
I want to be clear that I do not condone or support using these types of sources, since it funds non-democratic governments, but simply dismissing all of their stories as “fake news” without any further critical thinking or fact checking is not correct.
Example: https://www.rt.com/pop-culture/600410-germany-gelsenkirchen-renamed-taylor-swift/
Except for the final paragraph, it is very non-political, and easily verifiable to be true.
So it is untrustworthy. Shure the “fact” of this “news” is true, but thats nither newsworthy nor is it up to journalism standards. It should never be used as source.
I want to be clear that I do not condone or support using these types of sources, since it funds non-democratic governments, but simply dismissing all of their stories as “fake news” without any further critical thinking or fact checking is not correct.
I don’t call the news itself fake entirely, i say the news outlet is just not usable as source and should be avoided entirely because they will stage shit to influence people.
-
Why a librarian, in particular?
deleted by creator
Just say you don’t know 😂
Librarians are trained to disseminate many different kinds of information and find relevant or related media and publications, because that is literally their job. This skill can be very useful in finding relevant info for checking a news story.
Ask a librarian or fact checking site? I don’t consider either of them to be “experts” on misinformation, especially supposed “fact checking sites”.
And a librarian’s mandate is about managing sources, not being an expert in the data itself.
Otherwise good stuff.
You misunderstand. A librarian may not know if something is true or not, but they are educated on how to research something to find out if something is true or not. As you said, their job is to manage sources, which includes knowing with sources are reliable and which sources to look at for certain types of information.
What are the good fact checking sites?
I’m saving that!
But why even try? If the news support my biases, I’m sticking with it.
Lemmy 101
So a “cool guide” is random text with some icons strewn in?
Is the article listed in the “Opinion” section? Opinion is not news. Some sections are titled “Analysis” or “Political Analysis” these should be viewed as opinion. Train yourself to recognize an opinion article by reading the headline before you even click on it. Also look to see if there is a dateline at the beginning of the article. This will tell you where the news is being reported from and the source. Some will tuck it at the end where you’re less likely to see it (ahem, Fox News). Some will state in the article who is the source. These sites that are 90% political news will often have reporters in Washington DC and nowhere else. Personally I avoid reading articles who’s headline is a question or state what “could” happen. Know that we all are prone to bias. In my lifetime we’ve gone from literally a handful of news sources to a thousand each catering to a group telling them what they want to hear. Don’t be afraid to read stuff that goes against your beliefs, it will better prepare you for debating. Last and not least, for Jesus Fucking Christ don’t base your opinion on memes!
