[unishark]

> After all, it’s never “our” news we mistrust, it’s the other guys!

You imply this is some kind of hypocrisy or other character flaw, but this will always be true when there's uncertainty. If someone holds the same prior beliefs as you, it is rational to trust them more. Otherwise you would be assuming your own beliefs are wrong which makes no sense by definition.

Of course media outlets tend to go beyond just filling in the blanks with biased guesses, but still people will be more forgiving if they seem "sensible" generally.

[kortilla]

> If someone holds the same prior beliefs as you, it is rational to trust them more.

It may be rational, but that makes them terrible providers of news for the people they agree with. They have the same blind spots and are looking to support the narratives you both already believe.

[quetzthecoatl]

I would even say it's not rational, but cult like. Rationality is based on logical skepticism. More often than not, it's swimming against the tide questioning generally accepted axioms.

[leereeves]

I agree. Rationality includes avoiding confirmation bias (the tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms or supports one's prior beliefs or values).

Favoring information that confirms one's prior beliefs is the opposite of rational.

[aksss]

Only to the extent that “bias” is a character flaw. I understand the nature of it, but it is certainly a liability when after the “truth”.

[GoblinSlayer]

Beliefs are a spectrum. There are no two people with the same beliefs, which means there's always disagreement.

[colordrops]

If you trust one side or the other, you need to re-calibrate your beliefs, because they are wrong.