Evaluating Media Sources for Reliability
I think almost everyone across the political spectrum can agree that the media is fraught with bias and it’s difficult to figure out what sources are telling the truth and which are letting their financiers or ideologies influence the accuracy of their reporting.
You only have to hop on Facebook for less than a second to see a million terrible memes with misleading or flat out false information riling people up. Absurd articles claiming outlandish actions by celebrities and politicians are generally going to be unreliable, to say the least. Scrolling down the news feed of any social media site would have you believing all kinds of nonsense and falsehoods.
All is not lost. Many people over the years have dedicated themselves to fact checking and watching media sources to ensure we’re all getting accurate information. However, that doesn’t replace the reader’s responsibility in evaluating the information they are receiving and verifying it is correct to the best of their ability. A fact check or media watchdog site is a great stepping off point, but that’s not the end of your work in ensuring a reliable source.
Ways to Vet a Source for Reliability
Check the bias and general reliability from media watchdogs. There are many websites that will rate media for bias and accuracy, but they won’t always agree. It’s good practice to compare ratings across media watchdog sites. Some may rate a source center or least biased, but another side may believe the source skews right. These sites are also not a substitute for further verification of the source or story you’re trying to verify, but they are good starting points. AllSides, Media Bias/Fact Check, and Ad Fontes Media are three such media watchdogs.
Look for loaded or weasel wording. These are not technically lies, but may be misleading if not noted. For example, a left center source might describe a policy suggested by a right wing politician as “radical” or “controversial”, when they wouldn’t describe a left wing policy similarly. That’s an example of loaded wording: words intended to elicit an emotional response and to view the subject matter from the author’s point of view. Weasel wording is similar, for a different purpose. This refers to adding unnecessary qualifying wording to statements, or framing sentences to be vague while sounding as if they contained valuable information. The intent is to be vague enough that the sentence could be interpreted in the way the author intends, but not so much to be accused of blatant bias. Appealing to phrases such as “experts say” without defining how common the opinion is among the experts of that topic, and not mentioning any by name or referencing research is an example of weasel wording.
Consider the author/source/funding. Some sources are generally reliable, but on certain topics are less so. For example, the Washington Post is generally reliable, but they are owned by Jeff Bezos, the amazon founder and owner. Therefore, the Washington Post may not be a reliable source for information on Amazon, but has shown to be accurate on other subjects. Funding can also skew the bias or reliability of a source or article. If an article is funded by an oil company, you probably aren’t going to trust its claims about green energy.
Lessen chances of bias interfering with accuracy. Even good journalists get it wrong sometimes.For example, if both Snopes.com and NPR as sources are reporting the same thing, it's most likely reliable.
Avoid government interference in the media. If one source is financed by a government, do not trust it. Research US Sources in particular now that the Trump admin has begun suing media. Do not trust Sources that settled with him on a lawsuit. Sources from countries with low media freedom ratings should not be considered reliable (think like Russia). Look out for propaganda and connections to known sources of deliberate misinformation, like right wing pundits. When evaluating media reporting on war or conflict, one source must include a perspective from the other party involved in the conflict. You will be drawn into propaganda if you're not verifying what you've read.
Directly examine primary sources when available. It’s particularly common in science, but every subject is prone to misinterpretation and confusion by laypeople. When an article is describing studies or figures, they should source where they got their information. Look at where the writer of the article got the information and ensure that they accurately conveyed it.
Be wary of your own bias. Everyone has some bias, but you need to make sure it doesn’t interfere with your ability to evaluate a source for accuracy. Bias doesn’t equal inaccurate. People tend to gravitate to media that makes them feel comfortable, and sometimes that doesn't translate into reliable media. This is especially common with TikTok influencers. This is very human, but shouldn’t stop you from taking an objective look at the source. It’s easy to miss inaccuracies if you never read anything out of your FYP or Facebook.
Recognize bad faith framing. This happens when an article portrays any dissent or contradiction to their interpretation or analysis of their facts as ludicrous or deliberately portrayed as weaker than they are. This is often in the form of straw-man or slippery slope fallacies. To catch this issue, research what the opposition is directly saying on the issue to check for accuracy of quotations or policies. Check experts in the subject (such as an economist for an economic policy) to see if they agree the analysis is solid.
Be wary of opinion pieces masquerading as objective articles. Reliable sources will explicitly and clearly label opinion pieces as such. It will be clear when reading a piece from an acceptable source when they are conveying facts or simply opinions. A giveaway that an “article” is actually an opinion piece is loaded wording, “analysis” that slanted to clearly portray one side of an issue as incorrect by manipulating statistics or dishonest quotations without context, among other ways of tricking the reader into thinking they’re being provided accurate information. To avoid being manipulated, fact check with multiple sources.
How to Evaluate a Primary Source
Primary sources are documents, videos, and other forms of information that are direct from the source rather than conveyed by a secondary party. This could be in the form of official government documents like birth certificates, direct quotes from a public figure's website or social media account(s), historical documents such as wills or letters, scientific studies or academic papers, and other similar sources.
Use basic evaluation techniques as described for journalistic sources, where possible.
Check other sources to ensure that the primary source isn't controversial. Sometimes quotes or documents are falsified or attributed to the wrong person.
Be mindful of the bias in the source. If quoting a historical figure about a historical event, for example, check into the author of the quote and evaluate the ideas expressed in that context. For example, a Union and a Confederate would have different views of the Battle of the Bulge.
Be wary of AI and digital manipulation. Generally, it's easy to cross-reference and ensure that a video or pic is legit for historical events. For current events, treat videos and pictures from social media or other places with skepticism until verifying them.