[randcraw]

I treat news like it was an claim about nature by a scientist. Do other (independent) experts agree? If not, then I'm not ready to accept the claim yet. But if so, and the argument seems sound, then I'll tentatively consider believing it.

Or if opinions on the proposed news/idea are mixed or absent, I'll look at how bold the claim is and how disruptive the consequences of accepting it. Bold claims must offer more compelling support (or more undeniable) than mild claims, be that support evidentiary or logical.

Without sound support, at most I'll consider a claim to be plausible and perhaps intriguing. But it's not really trustworthy yet as news, and certainly not as science.

[Erlangolem]

I love this outlook, and I share it. I’d add that I like to take patterns of claims into account, past and present. Patterns of claims can be illuminating as to the reality of underlying motivations, even where claims are true. Sometimes claims are accurate, but by presenting only one segment of a story the reader’s conclusions are moulded a specific end. For example claims that video games cause violence recur in predictable ways, as do PR submarines.

Another useful filter is to identify which of Logos, Pathos, or Ethos is being employed most. Is an article trying to support its claims with citations, original research, and sound logic? Or is it just calling everyone who disagrees with it immoral?