Knowing sources has limited value in identifying deceptive news

It absolutely can be helpful to know the source of information. Unfortunately, there are serious limitations to the value. Why? Because there are no trustworthy sources out there.



The mainstream media in the past was considered to be an important source of information. As time progressed, journalists and pseudo-journalists realized the power that controlling information could give them. They shifted their focus from providing facts to providing an agenda.

While it is true that there are differences between mainstream media and social media, the differences have been misrepresented. We have been told that because it's so easy to create a fake story on social media, we should put our trust in the mainstream media. That's half correct. It is definitely easy to post fake news on social networks. That doesn't mean that we can trust mainstream news outlets.

Knowing the source can help establish the bias of an article. It can also help you determine how an article might deceive. For example, social media is more likely to include stories without any truthful content. Mainstream sources are more likely to use one side of a story, take things out of context, and inject opinions into stories that should be factual.

In some cases, social media can actually be used as a source for mainstream media outlets. A really good example of this came when multiple mainstream outlets provided a harsh commentary on children from a high school in Kentucky. The commentary was based off an edited video popularized by a fake Twitter account. Additional video was eventually released to disprove the narrative. Even after being disproven, the media outlets failed to acknowledge that any of the information provided was wrong. Instead, they used flimsy arguments such as the confrontation being "more complicated" than what the original video revealed.

Even if you know the source, you might overlook certain factors regarding bias. For example, I read an article from the notoriously biased Fox News on the Mueller report. Before the report was released, they mentioned that there would be bombshells against Trump. How could they know that? They didn't. Why would a conservative news outlet inject anti-Trump rhetoric in one of their articles? When I looked at the bottom of the page, I had my answer. The ultra-liberal Associated Press contributed to the article. I might have been lucky enough to find the second source, but not everybody will always know who is really behind an article.