It’s called “fact checking,” and it’s something we all need to do as we’re scrolling through our news feeds. Turns out there are people out there who share things that they agree with without bothering to see if what they are sharing is true. How do you verify that something you want to share is based in facts?
Source: PBS Newshour Student Reporting Labs, How to debunk war misinformation | Is This Legit? Mediawise, https://youtu.be/N3aNfKZ77ow
![Making Gravity [documentary] with Geoff Smith by neal campbell [video]](https://i0.wp.com/joebustillos.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/screen-shot-2011-10-23-at-11-13-16-pm.png?resize=440%2C264&ssl=1)
It came up in a clip from the AppleTV show, The Morning Show, where one TV executive was talking about packaging the news for the younger generation in videos and other non-TV ways, another executive retorted that all people care about is reliable journalism and they’ll always favor trusted sources. I don’t remember how long ago this was filmed and of course one has to take into account that this is a work of fiction, but the sentiment of the “reliable journalism” executive feels so out of touch. It’s like watching seemingly innocuous steps taken just before a horrible disaster strikes. And the disaster seems to have been totally avoidable.
My dad got his news from the LA Times. I get my news from… everywhere, my students watch TikTok, Twitch, and who-knows and assume that whatever they see is true (especially if it’s consistent with what they already believe). I’m sure it’s because I have a B.A. in Journalism, but I refuse to assent to the notion that we live in a Post-Truth world. Just because it’s horribly easy to share and spread misinformation doesn’t mean that we label this era with that name and call it done. On one end of the spectrum are the uncritical echo-chambers that say whatever agrees with their beliefs and at the other end are the impractical “rationalists” that expect every news item that surfaces to be confirmed by three separate sources. The latter is what journalists are expected to do, but to expect the general public to do that with everything that we encounter isn’t realistic. I love this stuff and I don’t have time to chase down and verify every story. If I don’t know or trust the source I’ll do what I can to corroborate the story, but I’m going to more likely do what the “reliable journalism” executive suggested and go with already known trusted sources.
So for me, the problem isn’t trusted sources as much as how these trusted sources get their information to me. In this era of 24/7 news reporting, where anyone can have high-production/presentation values, one cannot assume that such a program/presentation represents an actual news organization and not someone with an agenda not dedicated to factual truth. It’s a sound-to-noise issue.
I get most of my “news” via audio podcasts, I have a few video podcasts. I’m subscribed to the New York Times and Washington Post, but listen to their podcasts much more frequently than spending any time reading. Understandably, traditional print and TV journalism and local journalism are struggling. There’s got to be a way to do what that first fictional executive suggests as far as getting their “reliable journalism” out to the masses without assuming that they’re being listened to because they represent “trusted media.” I don’t know what the successful formula might be, but I have a feeling I’ll be working toward understanding what works for me as far as how I get my news. How do you know the news you trust is reliable?