Trust, Fact Checking & Journalism - Part 2
Yesterday, we looked the criticality of being able to separate truth from fiction, and news from propaganda. Today we look at how to find trusted sources1, and how to become a trusted source yourself.
How to Find Trusted Sources
This is tougher than it sounds. You need to be able to evaluate what original source materials are used by the people you read, watch, and listen to. In evaluating something that a source writes/says, ask yourself if you can find another (or better yet two) independent sources for the information.
First, the political lane. The best sources are those that have the actual information. For example, watching a clip of a reporter asking someone a question, and hearing the answer is a base source that can be trusted, IF you trust the reporter to not have played with the audio response. Second would be a print journalist who transcribed what was said during a conversation the reporter had with the other person. This is important for separating humans from deep fakes.
Of course, your next question is: How do I know if a reporter is legit? My way is to start with journalists I know personally, or have corresponded with, or who I’ve read for a period of years2. The journalists I rely on ALL adhere to the Code of Ethics3, which starts with:
Seek Truth and Report it
In addition, it pays to understand the background of journalists. If you’re following the political lane, you should know the following about your sources:
Do they have a degree in government or political science?
Do they have a law degree?
Have they served in government in an elected position?
Have they worked in government civil service or the military?
Have they been a staffer?
How long have they been reporting on politics?
Have they been embedded with a candidate/elected official?
Have they worked for the party?
Do they make money from other sources? If so, which ones? Could that influence them?
Knowing the background of your trusted sources will help you evaluate their areas of knowledge.
I also care for whom they write. Some publications are more legitimate than others. To evaluate this, you need to research who both the publisher and the owners are of the publication, and understand if there are restrictions on what the editorial side can publish4.
Other source information includes actual written information, like bills, letters, court filings and judgements. And that’s if your lane is political. Source information is different for other lanes.
My other lane is medical. When I evaluate medical information, I personally use data from refereed journals, and then double check the actual tests and clinical trial findings, as well as the best statistical data I can find at the local, state, and country levels. In addition, I completely discount medical information from sources other than legitimate doctors, researchers, and related professionals.
This is so tricky nowadays when so much of medicine has become politicized. SCOTUS agreed last week to take up Braidwood Management, Inc. et al. v. Xavier Becerra et al. this spring. The Cliff Notes version is that the Affordable Care Act calls for preventive services to be provided at no cost to the patient. The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force of HHS is in charge of determining which preventive services are to be covered. A number of moronic companies sued to prevent having to pay for items they felt were unacceptable for religious reasons.
Religion has NO PLACE in medicine. And I could drone on about that for a long time, but the salient point is that if the judgement of the 5th circuit stands, companies will be able to refuse to cover not just the preventative measures they oppose, but it’s likely paid vaccines will be next on the drawing board. And there is no certainty that the government will defend. That is, Xavier Becerra is the current HHS Secretary. Who knows who the new HHS Secretary will be5? John Sauer is the nominee for Solicitor General, who would likely present the government’s side, and he’d likely cede to whomever is confirmed.
Take a look back at the last two paragraphs. There is something glaring, which I did intentionally, to show you how to evaluate a trusted source. Now, I assume that if you read me every day, you consider me a trusted source, but what I normally do is to provide links to prove the facts. I skipped that, and you should be suspicious of people who don’t provide sources. So here they are:
Braidwood Management, Inc. et al. v. Xavier Becerra et al. You want this link to understand what the case is, view the full lists of plaintiffs and defendants, and be clear that it came from the 5th circuit. You might also want the tracker.
HHS Nominee (even if you don’t click on the other links, click on this one6)
Those are my personal lanes - I stay out of all the other lanes. But you should leverage the logic for your lanes to find trusted sources.
Once you find trusted sources, make sure you read their output on a regular basis. And tell everyone you know that so-and-so is a trusted source so they will know, too.
As the pool of legitimate journalists keeps shrinking, and we risk falling prey to “community notes” it becomes more and more necessary to stick with trusted sources who will provide information, and segregate facts and data from their own opinions.
How to Become a Trusted Source
Step 1: Pick an area of interest.
Step 2: Learn everything you can about it.
Let’s say you are interested in legislation. You’re interested in legislation that relates to a certain topic, like deportation, abortion/contraception, education, or whatever. You want to be a trusted source so that you can not only track legislation to gather people to contact their reps about it, but also to be in a position to take action if bad legislation is passed and enacted7.
First, learn all the base knowledge8.
How does a bill become a law under regular order?
How does a bill become a law circumventing regular order in both the House and the Senate?
Where do you track legislation (at the State and Federal levels)?
Which committee(s) will evaluate what types of bills prior to them going to the floor?
How many votes are necessary to pass a bill in the House, the Senate, the state legislative bodies?
Now, regarding the specific legislation:
What does the bill say?
Who is sponsoring the bill?
Who are the co-sponsors?
In what ways does the bill change in mark-up?
What amendments might be proposed?
Is there anything in the bill that can be proven to be unconstitutional9?
Once you know all that, it’s possible to define and implement the actions you will endeavor to undertake. And action is where it’s at.
I hope this has been helpful. As we go forward, knowing what is actually going on is going to be harder and harder to ferret out because of what the fascist regime will do to restrict the flow of information. Trusted sources, and their base information, will be harder and harder to come by.
Falsehoods will predominate, because chaos and mistrust are features, not bugs, of the incoming crowd of miscreants.
We must FIND truth (and reality) and make sure that others know about it.
Each individual’s “trusted sources” will likely differ. This post is not intended to tell you to whom you should listen, or read, but rather to provide a framework you can use for evaluation.
In some cases, decades.
As you can imagine, I adhere to the Code of Ethics.
For example, the LA Times has an obnoxious editorial policy, which is in direct violation of the Journalists’ Code of Ethics.
Yes, I know who’s been nominated — just holding out hope…sigh.
Here’s the legitimate link.
Sadly, that will happen more than we like, initially, at the Federal level. Depending on your state, you may have more options (and hope) at the state level. The point is, to fight back, you need to be sure about all your facts so that you provide solid information, and determine the correct actions to take.
You may well know this already!
It pays to have a working understanding of the US Constitution. It informs not only legality, but also process. A simple test: you likely know that the first 10 amendments to the Constitution are called The Bill of Rights. The first amendment details the five rights/freedoms of we, the people. You surely know that “freedom of speech” is one of them. Do you know the other four? The fourth one is often forgotten, but is significant and strategic in planning potential actions, as is the fifth one. Knowledge informs action.
As a complete aside, about 25 years ago, USA Today published an article on the First Amendment, and they only listed four of five rights. I immediately called to offer a correction. It was the first day of the person answering the phone. I asked to speak to some of the other people (I knew them by name because it wasn’t my first call) but they were all in a meeting and he was alone. And flustered. Until he checked “the board”. He said there were two sides, one had a list of people who called in on a regular basis with corrections and were normally wrong. The other side had a list of people who called in regularly and had never been wrong. He asked my name again, and said I was the only name on the “never wrong” side. They printed a correction the next day. I LOVE THE US CONSTITUTION WITH ALL MY HEART AND SOUL!
Would that all of our media followed this Manual for trustworthy reporting.