[chiefalchemist]

I agree that choices are limited. Nonetheless, the days of trusting "the news" media are long gone, at least for now. You can get *information* from CNN, etc. but that doesn't make it news, nor does it mean you're getting the full story and proper insights.

Listen. Think about what is said. Think harder about what is not said. Check another source. Repeat.

[SoftTalker]

Yes, sadly it's a cliche but you have to "do your own research" and most people don't have the time or don't want to spend their time that way.

Maybe there are still some monthly periodicals that do in-depth news, since they aren't trying to get an exclusive or be the first to break the story they would not be so motivated to just vomit clickbait continuously. But I don't know who they are.

I've largely just stopped paying attention. It's sad in a way, as I grew up with the lesson that paying attention to the news and current events was important. But it's all garbage now.

[chiefalchemist]

I'm no different than anyone else in that I don't have a lot of time. Where I have noticed I'm different is how closely I listen, how critical I am of what I hear, and how often I question what I did not hear. The other difference is, my BS detector for editorial - positioned as "news" / "journalism" - is very well oiled. I accept opinion - I have no choice - but I don't in my mind treat it as fact.

Most people seen to get caught up in looking for confirmation bias that they abandoned critical thinking. Most people hear what they want to hear, and the media is more than happy to feed them that comfort.

Let me give you an example, a couple of weeks ago I saw a story that the Sahara Desert (Africa) is greening. I noticed that from a number of different sources and each source used the same phrase for this[1]: "unusual weather patterns". Huh? Why is greening from "unusual weather patterns" but when there's damage it's *always* from "climate change"? No one I know caught the Orwellian sleight of hand.

Along the same lines, The Washington Post ran a story last week about the science of climate. It was even shared on HN. No one seemed to notice. Odd because it effectively said, up to now there was no definitive study on the history of the earth's climate. So up to now what were all "the experts" basing their "science" on then? Hearsay? Mindless parroting? Worst was this study effectively made a case for climate change might not be human-made, simply because over time climate has been very dynamic and at time extreme. Per this study and the graph it publish there is no "normal".

These were both in plain sight. And yet crickets. Maybe I should stop thinking and put more time into keeping up with the Kardashians?

[1] The fact that they used the same phrase also told me, they invested zero resources in this story and were merely parroting the narrative provided by the news service they were using. Note: This approach by definition is not journalism.