The news is all worth paying attention to, I think, as it eventually leads to more dots being connected. However, a lot of the news is inaccurate whether by accident or design, and it isn't worth getting excited over the inaccuracies. Therefore the problem is separating the real news (signal) from the inaccuracies (noise) more than separating the different story lines. This site is mostly helpful at arriving at a consensus truth.
My usual preference for determining accuracy would be numbers reflecting observed data. Whether presented as numbers or turned into flexible terms such as "some, a few, more or less, rising/falling" is important in assessing accuracy: if it can be counted it should be reported, and using comparative terms looks like a smokescreen to me. Sadly with such examples as the CDC changing numbers before our eyes, this signal of accuracy is now suspect and easily covered with propaganda noise.
If numbers aren't applicable then I fall back on what I know from history and observing people, and assessing accuracy gets a lot harder and subject to bias. Also time consuming: have to know all about the source and what motivates the statements made, who benefits, who loses, etc. This affects all the stories about people and institutions and ideology.
The news is all worth paying attention to, I think, as it eventually leads to more dots being connected. However, a lot of the news is inaccurate whether by accident or design, and it isn't worth getting excited over the inaccuracies. Therefore the problem is separating the real news (signal) from the inaccuracies (noise) more than separating the different story lines. This site is mostly helpful at arriving at a consensus truth.
My usual preference for determining accuracy would be numbers reflecting observed data. Whether presented as numbers or turned into flexible terms such as "some, a few, more or less, rising/falling" is important in assessing accuracy: if it can be counted it should be reported, and using comparative terms looks like a smokescreen to me. Sadly with such examples as the CDC changing numbers before our eyes, this signal of accuracy is now suspect and easily covered with propaganda noise.
If numbers aren't applicable then I fall back on what I know from history and observing people, and assessing accuracy gets a lot harder and subject to bias. Also time consuming: have to know all about the source and what motivates the statements made, who benefits, who loses, etc. This affects all the stories about people and institutions and ideology.