True - but 2+2=4 isn't the reporting of an event. It's a mathematical statement. The truth of the assertion is completely assessable wholly without regard to the identity of the person reporting it.

And yet, most things in life come down to objective truths that are specific, observable, and measurable.

Candidate X said Y thing a rally. What came before and after sets the context and provides nuance, both of which are necessary to provide the full picture. This is the thing most routinely abused in American politics.

No, it's not. You absolutely should reject certain sources.

Welp, now we're into the logical fallacy game. If Joseph Stalin says that 2+2=4, then he's correct. Now, should you listen to him on the subject of the Soviet Union's record on civil rights? Sure, if you want to know what a tyrant sounds like. But the point you're making is that we should hear anything he has to say.

And that's the danger. Every single point that can be argued here about how bad supposedly all these right wing sources could be made in triplicate in the other direction. Critical thinking is the ability to absorb and process information from a wide variety of sources and then having the ability to draw a conclusion.

Be very wary of people who say stuff like this:
When I was coming up you had three TV stations and people were getting a similar sense of what is true and what isn't, what was real and what was not. Today, what I'm most concerned about is the fact that because of the splintering of the media, we almost occupy different realities.
-Barack Obama

Can you see the danger in something like this? I reference Stalin for a reason. How factual were the uniformly opinioned Pravda and Izvestia in the USSR?


Whether the second and third sources claim that A or B is true has absolutely no bearing on whether A or B is likely to be true or not, because those sources aren't designed to investigate or interrogate A vs. B claims - just to support the previously decided-upon outcome. You should, instead, try to find news sources that come closest to the first type.

And we've arrived at the crux of the debate: Who decides?
Certainly not Team Up *or* Team Down, as both are incentivized in different ways. Which is why I'll always fall back to more speech and more information is always the better choice.