To ask how you know what to believe

[Annabella92]

Aibu to really be unsure what is believable

There is quite a chasm between what is being said on X about the German Christmas Market attack and what the BBC are saying. I've already seen enough examples of the BBC trying to persuade me of things I know with my very own eyes are not true. So I don't trust them. But I don't trust everything I read on X either. How do you triangulate

The BBC will be the correct report.

Don't get information from X.

The BBC is the trusted source. Not a bunch of conspiracy nuts on X.
sometimes stuff is posed on SM that isn’t immediately on BBC or other news channels because they want to verify facts not speculate.
Anyone trusting SM over BBC is an idiot.

The BBC report that men are women.

I'd take anything they say with a pinch of salt.

The BBC reported Scarlet Blake was a woman. It's a long time since they could be trusted.

Edit- ninja'd by @GabriellaMontez !

This is not about gender identity.

We were told that there was no indication of terrorism in the Southport killings - even though the context of the Taylor Swift class made it pretty obvious - so I no longer feel you are a conspiracy theorist if you don't trust main stream media. I don't.

This is not about gender identity.

No it's about what news sources to trust. And Scarlet Blake is an example of why you can't trust the BBC to tell you the truth.

Edited as I missed out the quote I was replying to - must stop MNing while eating!

Absence of proof isn't proof of absence.

The BBC likes to verify info before disseminating it.

The BBC - and other proper new sources - report what they are told and what they can substantiate. They don't engage in the speculation you see on social media, which is often fuelled by mis- and disinformation.

Ok. That's fine. Good luck! I'm out.

The twaw issue is ideological, and not relevant to most topics.

I doubt this

The intelligent and informed don’t rely upon a small number of sometimes not entirely unbiased reporting/repeating hearsay. There are more informed places to read, analyse and assess from different points of view. The other important aspect is not to act as though an individual or group is judge jury and executioner. Other than those actively involved in searching for evidence, dealing with the victims, questioning the alleged perpetrator, no news source, group or person will have a proper picture around the who, why, what, where or when. That might mean waiting until someone is tried and judged, but it won’t be by the press/ media. Best if an open mind is kept.

I would compare the BBC reports with a couple of other reputable agencies.

The truth will be somewhere in between

The question asked was whether to trust the BBC, and the BBC reporting that a male is a woman is an example of why you can't trust the BBC. That why it's relevant, it's an example of the BBC reporting something that they know isn't true to be true.

This website is quite good for telling you how reliable news sources are , it considers the BBC to be fairly reliable but with a leaning to liberal causes

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/

Correct. It's about honest, accurate news.

The BBC report through an ideological lens.

The most important thing is that nothing is said that will escalate the situation, start rioting.

I've already seen enough examples of the BBC trying to persuade me of things I know with my very own eyes are not true.

Our own senses can deceive and frequently bias towards things we want to believe.

How much of the news do you witness at the time it happens, in person, knowing all the surrounding facts and history, where you can see with your 'own eyes' from all persectives - and presumably hear with your 'own ears' - whilst holding no personal bias?

Until you can do that all your news will be filtered through various media. You will inevitably be biased in the media you choose. However, the media that are regulated - unlike the wild west of Twitter - are generally a better bet.

You could consider studying some basic philisophical logic and, particular, logical fallacies if you are interested. Wikipedia has some good summaries.

I'd be patient and wait for the facts to emerge, rather than rush to decide - it's not like anyone is relying on you to come to a conclusion. We've all got so urgent about everything and I don't think it's helpful

Wouldn’t trust the BBC even with telling us the date. It’s a propaganda machine.

So far X has said he’s a terrorist, he’s not a terrorist, he acted alone, he didn’t act alone it’s a conspiracy, that he’s a Muslim radical, that he’s rabidly anti-Islamic, that he’s an illegal inmigrant, that he’s a legal economic migrant, that he’s wanted in Saudi for crimes, that he’s persecuted and flees Saudi… that it doesn’t matter if he was legal or NOT he’s still FOREIGN to Europe and all non- white people in Europe should be deported back to wherever they came from…

Why THE fuck would anyone get their facts or news off X

Oh, and the latest that he’s a Zionist.

Ha ha ha to the bbc being the correct report!

most likely to be the most biased and inaccurate