Evaluating news sources is one of the more contentious issues out there. People have their favorite news sources and don\u2019t like to be told that their news source is untrustworthy.\n\nFor fact-checking, it\u2019s helpful to draw a distinction between two activities:\n<\/p>
Evaluating news sources is one of the more contentious issues out there. People have their favorite news sources and don\u2019t like to be told that their news source is untrustworthy.<\/p>\n
For fact-checking, it\u2019s helpful to draw a distinction between two activities:\n<\/p>\n
Most newspaper articles are not lists of facts, which means that outfits like The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times do both news gathering and news analysis in stories. What has been lost in the dismissal of the New York Times as liberal and the Wall Street Journal as conservative is that these are primarily biases of the news analysis portion of what they do. To the extent the bias exists, it\u2019s in what they choose to cover, to whom they choose to talk, and what they imply in the way they arrange those facts they collect.<\/p>\n
The news gathering piece is affected by this, but in many ways largely separate, and the reputation for fact checking is largely separate as well. MSNBC, for example, has a liberal slant to its news, but a smart liberal would be more likely to trust a fact in the Wall Street Journal than a fact uttered on MSNBC because the Wall Street Journal has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy that MSNBC does not. The same holds true for someone looking at the New York Observer vs. the New York Times. Even if you like the perspective of the Observer, if you were asked to bet on the accuracy of two pieces — one from the Observer, and one for the times, you could make a lot of money betting on the Times.<\/p>\n
Narratives are a different matter. You may like the narrative of MSNBC or the Observer — or even find it more in line with reality. You might rely on them for insight. But if you are looking to validate a fact<\/em>, the question you want to ask is not always \u201cWhat is the bias of this publication?\u201d but rather, \u201cWhat is this publication\u2019s record with concern to accuracy?\u201d<\/p>\n\n\t\t\t Candela Citations<\/h3>\n\t\t\t\t\t