According to the site linked here, Fox News is one of the most reliable sources.

Migrated from /r/WorldNews today, this place ain't look promising.

These are the people who say that the closer to the center you are, the more right you are, and then base "the center" on the discourse taking place between the left wing and the right wing of the most right-wing nation in the world, right?

positively goofy. Imagine the idea that no media source that splits the difference between fascist and liberal is worse than "pretty good". This fails the smell test from a mile away.

Don Lemon Tonight is "hyper-partisan left"? OAN "skews right"? Nothing left of Rachel Maddow is factual information? Ironic that a site that writes about how to call out bullshit news is bullshit.

I have scrolled through the Post and some remarks.

Firstly, I wish to address that the political idiom between countries and the meaning of a word can vary alot Ergo, in Europe the word " Liberal" can mean anything, so without context, it becomes meaningles. And the same goes for many USA wordings like " socialist and " left and right winged".

As this is a worldwide community, let's start to respect that words and meanings vary. The USA has some specific issues that other counties simply do not on the same scale. The same goes the other way around, ofcourse.

Many counties have different experiences, history and so, you most definitely can not project your political ideologicall meaning to other countries, and think you're going to be understood or have a good conversation.

Secondly, about misinformation. Not all media bias websites that are suggested are helpful to identify misinformation, but they can be of help. So, I suggest that, while the poster of any content should do his own research first, before blindly posting something , that person is mainly responsible for this info. And the whole community should share the responsibility for checking it out, before parroting a remark. Finally, the mods have the end repsoniblilty for this community, hence they could do a final check if needed.

Thirdly, the main source of misinformation are proganandists. Having a rational or factual conversation is impossible, simply because their goals are different. They want discord, arguments, emotional responses, so the only solution is to ban them. The bigger problem with propagandist ( bots/ botfarms/ dolls etc is to recognise them. That's sometimes hard to do. But they all have one similarity, and that is their INTENT.

" Propaganda is communication that is primarily used to influence or persuade an audience to further an agenda, which may not be objective and may be selectively presenting facts to encourage a particular synthesis or perception, or using loaded language to produce an emotional rather than a rational response to the information that is being presented. Propaganda can be found in a wide variety of different contexts.

Here some extra websites for additional factchecking:

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/

https://www.bellingcat.com/

https://euvsdisinfo.eu/about/

Yes, I do get that my contribution could have been better, more inclusive, less biased, better nuanced etc. On the other hand this is a public forum, if you can't find an ounce of patience to try to understand others, you might not belong here. Also if you are a nihilist, your remarks carry no weight without context. And if you feel happy about being a destructionalist, good for you, just don't harass others to agree and keep it to yourself.

What's up with the giant banner with your username? And will you do an AMA again?

I think it's the first time I know a mod name.

Possibly dumb question, but are you u/PoppinKream???

PoppinKream? that you, my dude?

If they are selling ad time, they are selling influence.

Citing rule #1, rule #2, and lack of rule #3 for your source.

Using a source one deems "reliable" is just adding one level of level of indirection to end in the same place as you can hardly expect that those who can't judge the reliability of information are any better at juging the reliability of sources of information. Further if you use a source to determine what is "reliable", how can you judge the reliability of that source at passing such judgements?!

(Unsurprisingly the whole "seek a reliable source" advice is frequently pushed by newsmedia in countries with the least trusted news sources, the very same newspapers and TV channels fillied with articles from self-proclaimed "opinion makers" who are clearly pushing politially biased messaging)

In fact I suspect that the veritable explosion of fake news was triggered and is fueled by the enshittification of the traditional mass "reliable sources" that predates the growth of social media - over the course of a few decades since about the 90s, previously trustworthy news media became more and more propagandistic and political, even self-proclaiming as "opinion makers", so those who kept believing ended up getting fed more and more manipulative, selective and slanted takes on situations and events whilst, those who stopped believing often ended up with other sources they deemed "reliable" which fed them "manipulative, selective and slanted takes on situations and events".

Yeah, there are genuinelly and pretty much guaranteed reliable sources of information on a number of subjects, the problem is they usually require specialist knowledge to understand (for example, scientific publications).

I really think this is not something that can be solved by "delegation of trust" and has to be solved by people learning genuine skepticism (not the "negate what you dislike" of useful idiots but the one that asks question like "why?", "what for?" and "who stands to gain?") and by regular comparisson of sources to catch the inconsistencies and even then, it's not easy as the media universe in some countries is dominated by a handful of owners and heavilly politicized (for example, the one and only trustworthy news source in the UK, IMHO, is The Private Eye, a satirical magazine, something you can easilly check by reading the same news in supposedly "reliable" news sources thera and also in the mainstream media of other european countries, which makes the "use of an angle" and the slanting quite glaring).

Always ask, Why am I hearing this information now?

What sources are given in the article? Are they all vague such as "persons familiar with the matter", "name with held because not authorized to speak to the press", "a spokes person said" etc. If no sources are named or are not independently verifiable it is suspect.

Some of your favourite news agencies are fond of this technique.

The Propaganda Multiplier is a very helpful article

That is a lot of info! Thanks for sharing!

There are a few problems with this. One, is choosing a reliable source. How do you genuinely know what is reliable or not? Most people will assume “I agree with this” = reliable source. Finding multiple news agencies saying the same thing also does not necessarily equal being reliable, as there can be multiple biased sources that are all misinformation.

Also, fact checkers, all heavily lean towards liberal views. Something to avoid if you’re looking for a true unbiased opinion. They typically dig harder into republicans and are much softer on democrats. Especially the sites you linked, it wouldn’t surprise me if they were all owned or funded by the DNC.

There’s a major issue with people hanging out in echo chambers and not challenging their beliefs. Your best bet is to find biased info on one side of the spectrum, and the other, and compare the two.

Great Tutorial