First, read the guidelines. Don’t do “did you even read the article” here.

Secondly, I did read the article. All it talks about is spotting questionable sources, comparing reports to shake out fake news, etc. As I said, the most effective propaganda tool is omission. You’re not going to compare sources on something you never even read about. After fact-checking a hundred times you’ll decide that NPR does report facts, but do those facts paint the whole picture? Also, comparing sources in this day and age is not helped by biases baked into search engines.

> As I said, the most effective propaganda tool is omission. You’re not going to compare sources on something you never even read about.

How is that a risk? What are the chances that anyone will only see news from one source?

> After fact-checking a hundred times you’ll decide that NPR does report facts, but do those facts paint the whole picture?

After fact-checking a hundred times, won't you learn NPR's strengths and limitations? And wouldn't you learn if facts are sometimes omitted?

I think we form nuanced, detailed, if often tacit opinions about the sources. For example, I'll articulate a little of mine:

* Rule #1: Never trust opinion pieces.

* NPR: Quality news, no deception or try to push an agenda, won't always dig deeply. Always present a pleasant tone and has light information density. An inefficient source, but sometimes have stories and facts that others lack - I wish I had more time for them.

* NY Times: World-changing revelations are taken for granted. Reporting is nuanced, never satisfying the desire for clarity (which is good - the world isn't clear). Sometimes leave critical questions (IMHO) unaddressed and can be lacking hardcore, expert analysis, and bury key facts in long, wordy reports. Recent, more narrative style is annoying.

* WSJ: Never quite trust them: Murdoch demonstrates they'll embrace the Reactionary movement at any cost to truth or society. WSJ reporting looks excellent - up to the standards of the best, like NYT, etc. - and they cover important stories, but a lot of doubt lingers.

> Quality news, no deception or try to push an agenda

you... may want to take a refresher course in the topic at hand

You say that as if your own position is beyond question, but what makes it true? What is your position?

You may find my position is far from yours and what you've normalized, but if you do understand these issues, you know that that's not a signal about accuracy; it's often a signal about biases when we don't have room for considering other POVs.

> How is that a risk? What are the chances that anyone will only see news from one source?

The majority of people get their news from the limited 'free' articles that have been linked to them by Apple/Google/Facebook's recommended news based on your browsing habits to sell you more ads.

I don't need a study or source to make that claim. You need critical thinking to understand it.

You have too much trust for NPR and the NYT after the revelations that so much of their reporting on Russian collusion and the first impeachment were false[0] and the Brian Sicknick death by fire extinguisher lie that was completely fabricated[1] by the news media.

0 https://greenwald.substack.com/p/the-media-lied-repeatedly-a...

1 https://taibbi.substack.com/p/aaugh-a-brief-list-of-official...

Or maybe you have too much trust in those sources? I don't find Greenwald credible, for example.

This is just it - most people criticize the media have a clear political agenda, it oozes out of them. In this case, it immediately goes to Trump and Russia, almost instantly, almost as if it's a campaign. It misleads by saying "we don't have direct evidence of this, therefore it must not have happened." The two articles linked are not convincing.

Often times people complain about the mainstream media and then post their own media, without convincing me why I should trust this media over any other media.