How do you decide what is a reliable source for controversial topics on the internet?

Akrasia

The internet if swamped with more information than anyone can consume on their own.

COVID 19, MMR Vaccine, Climate Change

Based on the 3 topics above, how should an intelligent, well intentioned, and well educated person decide which information sources are reliable?

When you see information being spread online about all of these 3 public crises, how do you choose which sources are credible and which should be disregarded?

Should you believe 'independent' reports on 'alternative' news sources? or should you place more emphasis on the official announcements by reputable bodies?

How do you know which alternative sources are genuine? Are some of these sources run by people looking to cash in on panic and uncertainty? How can you tell?

What advice would you give to your real, or fictional, child who asks you for advice on who to believe?

Akrasia

Akrasia wrote: »

Should you believe 'independent' reports on 'alternative' news sources? or should you place more emphasis on the official announcements by reputable bodies?

I lean towards the latter. Emphasis on "reputable", "alternative" could spring from a paranoid individual with a disruptive vendetta. And I'm able to critically evaluate, or separate the two.

Rubberchikken

Believe no one. Everyone has an agenda.

Atlantic Dawn

Anything posted or shared on Facebuke I wouldn't burn with someone else's lighter.

quokula

If your sources are implying that either vaccines or climate change are controversial then you need to change them.

In general there are reputable mainstream sources and if you go into more specialist sites it’s usually not that hard to ascertain by looking up the people behind them, how they’re funded, the sources for any stats and other information etc

Junkyard Tom

Yes.

freshpopcorn

I'd ask them to see does Gemma O'Doherty follow it and if she does then to really consider how reliable it might be.

con747

Research the source and their credentials.

Raconteuse

I go with public health sources like the HSE, NHS and WHO but I've no doubt someone will come along and say they're in cahoots with big pharma or something.

endacl

Raconteuse wrote: »

I go with public health sources like the HSE, NHS and WHO but I've no doubt someone will come along and say they're in cahoots with big pharma or something.

They’re in cahoots with big pharmaceutical or something.

Wheety

Snopes

Ipso

I only believe what the Qanon intelligentsia tells me. Anyone who disagrees with them are child eating paedos.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Really good question, OP. I try to read widely on topics I’m interested in. There are a few joke publications on both sides of the political spectrum. I avoid those and try to read from moderate publications. I also like to read comment sections. There’s chafe there but there’s also wheat. I read both opinion pieces and straightforward reporting. Then I look at some of the source material depending on how interested I am. From all of this, I try to crystallise my own views. It’s not a perfect method but I’m happy with it.

nkl12xtw5goz70

Akrasia wrote: »

What advice would you give to your real, or fictional, child who asks you for advice on who to believe?

I'd educate the child to recognize bias and spin -- and tell her that nothing is ever free from them. Even "respected" academics and "reputable" media outlets like the BBC or RTE are often toeing a party line. Nobody can be believed without question. Obviously ideological sources should be dismissed -- the Guardian just as much as Fox News. Then information from multiple sources should be compared and checked for bias and spin. This is time-consuming but there's no other way.

You’ll never get really reliable. They’re all pushing some angle for their own benefit.

RWCNT

The YouTube channels of angry loners.

Those guys won't steer you far wrong.

Snotty

I don't need to read some peer reviewed academic paper to know vaccines = good, climate change = bad. Some people forget to use their own best judgement when getting information.
Say if someone printed that the carbon tax in ireland has directly caused an increase in certain chemicals in the atmosphere from 2008 to 2018, I think I could consume that without the need to further research, simply because its both believable but also its probably written with a certain agenda, my believing in the printed statistic doesn't mean I need to buy into the BS agenda they hope the statistic will be used for.

Some people choose to avoid partisan sources.

I go the opposite way. I prefer to read partisan sources from all sides, while being aware of their agendas, and then try to compare that to any verifiable facts/ truth in order to filter out the BS.

corkgsxr

If I uses the phrase big pharma it's fake. 100% loony stuff

corkgsxr

corkgsxr wrote: »

If I uses the phrase big pharma it's fake. 100% loony stuff

That is quite a mainstream reference, just like big oil, big data.

Just using that phrase denotes nothing in and of itself

super_furry

This dude....

https://twitter.com/twlldun/status/1232346216656244741?s=09

EmmetSpiceland

I go with RTÉ, one side calls it an organisation run by “left wing socialist stickies” while the other says it’s just a “Fine Gael mouthpiece”.

If both sides aren’t happy with it then it must be doing something right.

As for boards, well, there are a few posters with, what I would consider, quite evil “opinions” on things so it, usually, feels right to think the opposite of what they think.

One eyed Jack

Akrasia wrote: »

The internet if swamped with more information than anyone can consume on their own.

COVID 19, MMR Vaccine, Climate Change

Based on the 3 topics above, how should an intelligent, well intentioned, and well educated person decide which information sources are reliable?

When you see information being spread online about all of these 3 public crises, how do you choose which sources are credible and which should be disregarded?

Should you believe 'independent' reports on 'alternative' news sources? or should you place more emphasis on the official announcements by reputable bodies?

How do you know which alternative sources are genuine? Are some of these sources run by people looking to cash in on panic and uncertainty? How can you tell?

What advice would you give to your real, or fictional, child who asks you for advice on who to believe?

When someone uses the word ‘crisis’, their lack of perspective is a giveaway that they have an agenda of their own going on as opposed to informing and imparting information in an objective manner.

Would an intelligent, well educated and well intentioned person decide any source was reliable or would they base their expectations on an argument from authority? Surely an intelligent, well educated and well intentioned person would possess the critical faculties to be able to form an opinion independent of any particular source?

I’ve taught my child to trust his parents as the ultimate source of knowledge on any subject.

magicbastarder

Never trust anyone with a stupid sounding username.

magicbastarder

magicbastarder wrote: »

Never trust anyone with a stupid sounding username.

I looked at your username and LOL'd. Well played.

OldGoat

Far left, centre left, centre right, far right.
You can only read material from an ideology that is TWO places from where you stand.

Millicently

I'm not sure I trust anyone on the Coronavirus. I certainly don't trust the Chinese government to be honest and there were stories from crematorium workers in China that bodies were being brought to them for cremation but they were told not to add them to the figures so the number of deaths in China may be much higher. The Irish government dragged their heels on advising people not to travel to China, possibly concerned about damaging relations with the Chinese government but jumped straight in telling people not to travel to Italy. We are in no way shape or form prepared for it in Ireland.
The WHO seems woefully unsure of it and the borders need to be shut around the world to travel/tourism until this thing is gotten under control. The only thing going across borders should be food and medicine and necessary products but the emphasis from WHO seems to be about money not lives. I think this is going to be much worse than they think. One only has to look at Iran where the health minister is suffering with it publicly but the government won't close the city because it's 'holy' and they want the money from pilgrims.

darjeeling

If it's a news report from a media organisation I'll probably cross-check if other media organisations I usually trust are saying the same, especially if it's a source I don't usually go to.

If it's a story citing scientific evidence, I may go to the original papers to see if the news report matches the original science, or even if the science seems sound. I'd be much more likely to do that if it's something in my own area rather than something like particle physics, which I'll have no possibility of understanding and so have to hope has been properly peer-reviewed.

I don't usually have faith in random and outlandish sounding stuff on websites I've never seen before. Anyone can write anything on the web.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

I need to find out more about the coronavirus whistleblower who AFAIK was a young healthy man but he still died of it. That’s a point of worry for me. Unless he was an immunocompromised individual, we should be wondering about that. I don’t think anyone needs to panic, I just think we need MOAR information.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

The Guardian’s ideological strand is ridiculous but it makes me sad to think of people completely avoiding it because of that. There are so many interesting articles that have nothing to do with any ideology.

Akrasia

As far as I’m concerned, when it comes to scientific issues, there is no better source for news than the foremost scientific journals and associated publications. Next come respected scientific press like New Scientist, or Science Magazine

When it comes to politics and world events,I trust
news media sources with integrity and a reputation for honesty to protect that drives them to fact check and scrutinize their sources. These may have political bias but they never post outright lies or misinformation. I would put the Guardian,
Independent, the London Times in this category. (Although I tend to steer clear of the editorial and lifestyle sections)

Then there are less scrupulous media outlets like the Telegraph, daily mail, express, Fox News who pay lip service to journalism but have a well earned reputation for posting stories that are verifiably, factually incorrect and misleading and put a great deal if political spin on their stories to muddy the truth or give a false impression.

And then there are sources that will post anything, often completely made up facts or assertions without any evidence or credibility, without any journalistic integrity as long as it fits a certain ideological world view or drives traffic to their site. These are sites like Breitbart, natural news, Alex Jones, blogs and so called independent news sources that are run by lone nutters, or are paid fronts for interest groups

There are some independent media sources that are much better than others for analysis rather than fact reporting. If these sources refer to respected and respectable sources for the facts that underpin their analysis then they can be worthwhile and enlightening content, especially if they are presented by experts in the field they are talking about, but there are many many others who simply pretend to be experts and present their own half baked opinions as if they were undisputed facts make you stupider the more you listen to them whether they’re radio talk show hosts or lunatics on YouTube.

In short, I try to find sources that have a good reputation for honesty and integrity and for verifying their facts before repeating them. And I’m amazed that so many millions of people choose to get their information from sources that do not meet any of those criteria

Capt'n Midnight

Wheety wrote: »

Snopes

https://xkcd.com/250/

Rufeo

Just open up a thread on abortion.

Ipso

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

https://xkcd.com/250/

Do you have a source for this?

buckwheat

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

https://xkcd.com/250/

https://giphy.com/gifs/southparkgifs-l2SqhJqKSXNhFnH3y

Capt'n Midnight

Ipso wrote: »

Do you have a source for this?

This is the XKCD for that

Snotty

EmmetSpiceland wrote: »

I go with RTÉ, one side calls it an organisation run by “left wing socialist stickies” while the other says it’s just a “Fine Gael mouthpiece”.
.

Just because it's described as different variations of the left doesn't mean it can be trusted. But in saying that, it's agenda would only be local so international news wouldn't have much bias from RTE

RTE lost me when they went balls deep with the climate change propaganda, whoever was paying them.

Lonesomerhodes

quokula wrote: »

If your sources are implying that either vaccines or climate change are controversial then you need to change them.

In general there are reputable mainstream sources and if you go into more specialist sites it’s usually not that hard to ascertain by looking up the people behind them, how they’re funded, the sources for any stats and other information etc

Yes no controversy here. Not to me anyway.

Vaccines are crap and will kill you quicker than any disease.

Climate change exists but anyone who is insane or delusional enough to think they personally are a threat to the planet is taken in by the mass brainwashing used to bring in carbon taxes left right and centre. This planet will outlive us by billions of years and shake us off like a case of fleas.

Wibbs

Lonesomerhodes wrote: »

Vaccines are crap and will kill you quicker than any disease.

Polio has all but vanished as a disease of childhood in the west because of vaccination and that's but one example. Smallpox, the first disease targeted by the concept of vaccination and a virus that killed and disfigured billions throughout history has been completely eradicated in the human population. So to blurt out "Vaccines are crap and will kill you quicker than any disease" is one of the most retarded opinions someone could hold.

Climate change exists but anyone who is insane or delusional enough to think they personally are a threat to the planet is taken in by the mass brainwashing used to bring in carbon taxes left right and centre. This planet will outlive us by billions of years and shake us off like a case of fleas.

Without finding direct artefacts you can literally track the progress out of Africa of anatomically modern humans over time by the number of species that abruptly go extinct after we show up. If there is no direct evidence for us in a place a sudden extinction at a particular time of large fauna(including previous human species) is a dead giveaway of the timeframe of our arrival. Forget climate change for the moment, we as a species have a 60,000 year old history of directly affecting the planet's environment and ecology. If we had never evolved as modern humans this planet and its inhabitants would look very different.

Hoop66

Millicently wrote: »

I'm not sure I trust anyone on the Coronavirus. I certainly don't trust the Chinese government to be honest and there were stories from crematorium workers in China that bodies were being brought to them for cremation but they were told not to add them to the figures so the number of deaths in China may be much higher.

This is a great example; "there were stories" doesn't count as reliably sourced reporting to me.

quokula

Lonesomerhodes wrote: »

Climate change exists but anyone who is insane or delusional enough to think they personally are a threat to the planet is taken in by the mass brainwashing used to bring in carbon taxes left right and centre. This planet will outlive us by billions of years and shake us off like a case of fleas.

So your argument is, the planet itself won't be destroyed it's just humans that will go extinct? And that's a price worth paying rather than a few quid in carbon tax? Right.

Lonesomerhodes

ReginaldSmythV wrote: »

RTE lost me when they went balls deep with the climate change propaganda, whoever was paying them.

RTE are nothing but propaganda.

Out and out spin and lies.

Climate change propaganda is going to be used to introduce carbon taxes on basically everything!.


Imagine being so brainwashed as to think paying taxes will 'save the planet'

like saying an asteroid is going to crash into Earth so the government introduces a asteroid tax and everyone believes the tax will work. :rolleyes:


Those degenerate extinction rebellion idiots really are beyond stupid.

quokula

Hoop66 wrote: »

This is a great example; "there were stories" doesn't count as reliably sourced reporting to me.

Absolutely. I wouldn't trust anything official from the Chinese government, but there's no reason to believe unsubstantiated speculation either. There's no reason to distrust information coming from WHO, and indeed other countries like South Korea who are seeing large numbers of case.

granturismo

Lonesomerhodes wrote: »

...
Those degenerate extinction rebellion idiots vaccine deniers really are beyond stupid.

Fixed your post for you.

Hoop66

Lonesomerhodes wrote: »

Climate change propaganda is going to be used to introduce carbon taxes on basically everything!.


Imagine being so brainwashed as to think paying taxes will 'save the planet'

like saying an asteroid is going to crash into Earth so the government introduces a asteroid tax and everyone believes the tax will work. :rolleyes:

Hardly an equivalent situation.

The point of a carbon tax is to make things that produce a lot of CO2 more expensive, hopefully causing people to make a less carbon-emitting choice.

How would a tax, designed to affect human behaviour, affect the behaviour of a lump of rock in space?

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Hoop66 wrote: »

This is a great example; "there were stories" doesn't count as reliably sourced reporting to me.

The most interesting thing to emerge for me was the Chinese whistleblower dying, the young doctor. If he was otherwise healthy, that’s notable. It means it’s not just immunocompromised people dying from it. I wonder how his general health was?

Lonesomerhodes

Hoop66 wrote: »

Hardly an equivalent situation.

The point of a carbon tax is to make things that produce a lot of CO2 more expensive, hopefully causing people to make a less carbon-emitting choice.

How would a tax, designed to affect human behaviour, affect the behaviour of a lump of rock in space?

Is equivalent

See the simpletons who believe a carbon tax will 'help the planet' and not line the pockets of billionaires have lumps of rocks for brains. :pac:

I can't deal with these carbon taxes will save the planet people at all. Beyond all logic and reason. Absurdly stupid people.

storker

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

The Guardian’s ideological strand is ridiculous but it makes me sad to think of people completely avoiding it because of that. There are so many interesting articles that have nothing to do with any ideology.

When reading movie reviews I usually read the Guardian's take on any given movie last. It can usually be relied on to take the most po-faced view of all.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

storker wrote: »

When reading movie reviews I usually read the Guardian's take on any given movie last. It can usually be relied on to take the most po-faced view of all.

That’s fair but that’s an area affected by the ideological slant. I’ve read articles in the Guardian on what it’s like to be a doctor on a remote Scottish island or long reads on sinuous crime mysteries or great sports series. Avoiding the paper completely like some people do is to miss out on gems like that.

Conor Bourke

I take all my cues from that bastion of journalistic integrity, Alive! magazine