2007-03-05 23:37:39 · 9 answers · asked by Harold S 1 in News & Events ➔ Media & Journalism
By taking no one source as gospel and reading both those you agree with as well as those you don't in order to draw out the real truth. Just don't be the "opened minded" kind who only looks at that which supports your opinion. Use common sense and your own brain...good luck to you!
2007-03-05 23:45:19 · answer #1 · answered by utahbugtussel 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Until we figure a way to look into people's hearts, journalists would be ill advised to believe absolutely what any source says at all times. Until that unlikely day, the best we can do is verify, verify and verify some more. Everything else is a kind of educated trial and error -- coupled with clear attribution as to who says what and under what circumstances. Over time, journalists learn to ask questions of their sources that fill in blanks and, frequently enough, tease out inconsistencies. We cross reference. We use multiple sources. Still, many of us come to trust and sometimes depend on sources (that) prove to be reliable time and again. Mostly, over time, we get to know what blinders our sources wear, and find ways to fill in the part of the picture that -- intentionally or not -- they leave out. The problem with spin masters is not that they fool us, but that so many journalists are so willing to be knowingly spun.
2007-03-05 23:43:23 · answer #2 · answered by evildragon1952 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Is this source knowledgeable about the topic? That might mean education or profession, or it might mean he or she witnessed an event. Don't ask a waitress for a foreign policy analysis, and don't ask a politician how to stretch a dollar in the family budget.
Has this source provided good information in the past? To you, to others in the media, to students, city council members or whatever group is appropriate.
2007-03-06 01:29:40 · answer #3 · answered by MyThought 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I'm not a journalist, but I am a media junkie. I would consider reputation. I think a person or organization has to prove themselves reliable in order to be considered credible.
Sadly, the MSM agrees with me less and less these days, and a lone idiot funded by Exxon can be considered a reliable rebuttal to global warming, or an anonymous shill for the administration can be considered an insider telling us how forceful and masterful Our President is in a private meeting.
2007-03-05 23:43:36 · answer #4 · answered by Meg W 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Often it's as easy as just deciding whether the source is making an emotional argument or a rational one based on data.
Really, if you have any question in your mind, try to find a better source. It's not hard to find good ones.
2007-03-05 23:42:10 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
i dont have a problem with that
if it makes me angry ,or it casts general blame its a flag
all sorts of people do all sorts of good and bad things
if they beat up on just one type or the other i just dont trust it ,
say every day begins and ends with a clear bias thats what they are choosing to present
anyone can see evil in a certain type only
but clearly it [whatever ''it'' may be ,isnt restricted to any one type of race /sex crime or country exclusivly [all the time]
bias is
2007-03-05 23:55:01 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
...check it's "history"... has the source remained unchanged in the face of "time", "controvcy" and circumstance... ? has the source been reliable in the past...? and continues to do so...? then ask yourself.... let that "special" inner voice speak to you... you'll then see what your're looking for... be still and "look"...
2007-03-05 23:47:19 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
See it can be verified by other sources.
Also check to see the reaction by the other side to it.
2007-03-05 23:42:25 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Only when it can be confirmed by other sources.
2007-03-05 23:48:59 · answer #9 · answered by Mr.Wise 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋