[wallacoloo]

> Another is that the opposing content can actually be merged. In many cases the content will cover different pieces of the same broad issue. Or the interviewees will present their opinions in a completely different fashion. Up to you to carry all this context in your head, or make simplistic summaries of viewpoints that don’t add much value beyond what is already commonly known.

If differently aligned parties cover different sections of a broad issue, then aren’t you gaining more knowledge by listening to more varied sources? V.s. listening to just one political angle that would give you only a narrow slice of reality.

Also, what is “commonly known”? I personally have found when taking in 3-4 different sources that the amount of common knowledge is vanishingly small! How many of the pro covid lockdown group know anything about the death rate for your age group? Or knew accurate ratios of outdoor v.s. indoor spread? How many of the anti-lockdown group knew these things? There’s a lot of things which should be common knowledge that really aren’t.

You can combat some of this by reading “both sides”. But if you’re doing that, doesn’t it sort of mean that you trust neither of your sources? Aren’t you doing extra overhead to sort out where each side is wrong/lying? Seems better to just find a source that you trust instead.