I take AP and Reuters with a smaller grain of salt than most outlets. Above outlets, I view videos that don't have clear edits as trustworthy but not definitive. There's a bit of a catch-22 where full context is necessary to better understand these videos, but people don't start recording until the situation is halfway played out and if they do it's fishy. Any "true" context that we get is based on testimony that's retroactively influenced by how things panned out.
The best thing the layperson can do is to trace stories to their origin point to see what the real substance is before becoming too dogmatic about what the reporting on the event says. Doing that with every story takes an unrealistic amount of time and when we do research news, it's often painted by the confirmation bias of skepticism or need for validation that made us research the news in the first place.
Idk, it seems impossible to navigate.
I agree with OH that Fox's straight reporting is just as reliable/unreliable as standard reporting btw.
__________________
Studies show that when a given norm is changed in the face of the unchanging, the remaining contradictions will parallel the truth.
|