But isn’t it gullible to believe everything the media tells you?
Surely no one does? Although given the readership of the mail and viewership of Fox News...
Critical thinking is about looking at information sources and making judgements on how they may be biased. For example picking apart the stats in a government statement on the NHS. It’s aboit understanding how statistics are abused, how language can be used emotively (again DM is a master at this) etc etc. And how politics puts a spin on what should be value neutral facts.
While it’d be pretty exhausting to question every single thing the media tells you (I tend to believe local traffic reports aren’t a direct line from the illuminati ) it’s good to look at all news sources with a critical eye. Who paid for this? Are the stats valid? Do they support the conclusions the article gives? Any vested interests?
You can see great examples of this just by reading coverage of the same event in different papers. Same story but the FT will cover it differently to the mail.
That’s a very different thing to conspiracy thinking. Take vaccines and climate change :vast body of peer reviewed individual papers driving a general scientific consensus. Some mild noodling around the exact details at most. Do I believe that? Yes, I do. I believe that data scientists produce is looked at and critiqued by those who know. I can see the source data and I’m qualified to interpret it.
And yet some people continue to believe that vaccines and climate change aren’t effective/real. That’s not critical thinking, it’s a rejection of solid evidence, coupled with an odd mix of gullibility and paranoia - because people instead believe ‘sources’ who have no accumulation of data or expertise.
The conflict between objective truth and the climate of accusing outlets of fake news is a whole thread by itself :/