[roenxi]

If you just want a medium-intensity tip, whenever a newsman reports on what someone said, look up what that person actually said (in context and with a charitable "best possible interpretation" lens). If the two match up then the reporting is about as good as you'll find anywhere. If you can't find a primary source then there is a very real question of how the newsman figured it out that deserves some reflection.

There are basically 3 grades of reporting - trashy lies, very biased and informative. Misreporting what people actually said is a strong tell of the first two - which can still be fun to read but ultimately they're trying to sell you on something that is probably against your interests.

[Adverblessly]

> trashy lies, very biased and informative. Misreporting what people actually said is a strong tell of the first two

For "biased" rather than outright lies, I think the two most common easily observable techniques I see are:

- Quoting known unreliable sources: "Black people eat human babies! (say KKK leadership)"

- Using passive and active voices to shift blame: "Police shoot and kill bystander during drug bust" vs. "Shots fired during drug bust fatally injured potentially uninvolved man"