THREAD: The reaction of readers to the coverage of Jamal Khashoggi's disappearance has made me realize that many people know little about how to critically evaluate the news they are consuming. A few words below on how to read news smartly.
First of all, what's the news outlet? If it's state-owned/supported, or based in a state w/out press freedom, read with an appropriate amount of skepticism, but don't discount it. States often use their outlets to leak certain perspectives, and that in itself tells you something.
For international media, it's worth checking the location and bio of the reporter. Are they based in the country they're writing about? Or have they spent a significant amount of time there, meaning they would have sources on the inside? Do they speak the language?
Another thing to consider: In the past, have this reporter's and this news outlet's scoops and anonymously-sourced stories generally come out to be true, in cases when we are able to easily judge that? Eg when they said something will happen, did it happen?
None of these things on their own would make me believe or discount a story, but they're all pieces of information that, added up, you can use as a reader to help judge for yourself.
Next, there's sourcing. Don't just read the headline and the first few paragraphs -- read closely for the source/s of the information and how it is attributed. Is the source another media outlet? In that case, go to the original media outlet and begin the same process again.
For example, the Daily Mail very often sloppily rewrites media coverage from other outlets with little regard for sourcing or accuracy. Ignore them and go to the original source and judge it for yourself.
Even in well-reputed news outlets, sometimes the writing and editing process means that the headline and first few sentences won't match up perfectly with the sourced information -- they can take it too far or stretch. Read exactly what the source is saying, and compare.
On anonymous sources, you can't just discount them. You need to read critically and decide for yourself. There's a very good reason many reports must be anonymously sourced, especially in countries without freedom of speech.
Is the anonymous source a government official? They often are. These stories should have a great deal of credibility, with the giant caveat that plenty of governments do lie and that official could have an agenda. However, that still conveys a certain kind of information.
Other factors to consider: Is there a single anonymous source or several saying same thing? How are those sources described and how might they know what they know? The more transparency a news outlet can provide on this, the better.
Many times it's not possible for news outlets to provide much transparency on the sourcing because it would put the sources at risk. In those cases, I rely on the track record of the individual reporter, the news outlet, and common sense in order to decide if I believe a story.
Different news outlets do have different standards for how they approve anonymous sources, and I can't speak to them all, however the standards I've dealt with in my current position are extremely stringent. You'd be surprised on what we can and can't report; it's very strict.
A final consideration: While there's pressure for reporters to break news, reporters in many countries can also face real risks if they get a big story wrong. That generally puts even more pressure on them to make sure their sourcing is air-tight. Happy critical reading!
Guys, as many people are misinterpreting this thread, it is NOT about “fake news” or how journalists are scum 🤦♀️ It’s about critical thinking skills you can use to consume news, or how to use your own intellectual faculties to evaluate what you’re reading.
I also recognize that some of these steps are way too time-consuming for the average reader to perform; take what you can and use what works for you. The rest is largely directed towards chronic news consumers who follow particular countries or stories closely.
