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

Unfortunately these days, pretty much all news sources need to be handled with a degree of skepticism. That very much includes the BBC.

I think the 'truth' eventually becomes clear, via alignment of multiple sources. It does take time.

That's a very kind suggestion, I did a couple of philosophy modules at uni and despite trying to keep my OP to simple language it is about the poisoning of the epistemic commons

What I have seen several times now over recent years is details being omitted from mainstream reporting that were revealed earlier on Social Media, dismissed as misinformation. Then after some time being confirmed as true on the mainstream platforms that initially said it was false.

I wouldn't believe Fred on X who got it from his friend Burt on TikTok, who knows it's true because he got it from a friend of his Auntie's second cousin's next door neighbour in the US who is a personal friend of Donald Trump.

The thing about Twitter is that it's not one source, it's multiple voices. There will be some on there that you find more trustworthy than others.

We could play a game! We could list the key details the BBC have chosen to share right here, and then what is being said on X. Note the differences, and then all come back in 6 months and see if any of it has since been reported by the BBC - thus making it "true".

It is very difficult to find completely unbiased information so it is always a question of degree or reliability and accuracy, add in sources not being deliberately inaccurate but just not completely up to date. Add in the issue of confirmation bias where we look for sources of information that confirm our existing views. It’s a complete minefield unfortunately

But would you believe clips from the BBC on X of the alleged attacker?

Or are they all deep fakes? Baudrillard eat your heart out.

The BBC will be careful not to speculate or to include details in its reporting that its own journalists haven’t been able to corroborate.

People on Twitter do not hold themselves to the same journalistic standards, and so will happily report rumours and hearsay.

if the BBC is later able to confirm those rumours and hearsay then it will be able to report them. That doesn’t mean it was wrong to omit them from their original reporting though.

I'm being a bit dense but why did it being a TS class make it clear it was a terrorist attack?

Surely that was down to people's own assumptions? Not saying it was incorrect but the link wasn't something that stood out to me? We have no idea if he targeted that class?

Anyway I digress, what is X saying on the matter of last night's attack? (I don't use X)

But why reduce it to a simplistic either/or? Why not compare the BBC, the Guardian, the Times, Telegraph, Mail, Independent, NYTimes, Washington Post, Fox News, Le Monde, the major German newspapers, etc etc. with the babble/Babel of X if you are so keen on getting the whole truth? And then doing some analysis/synthesis, weighing of probabilities.

People from the left think the BBC is tory propaganda, people from the right think it’s lefty propaganda - given this I believe it is fairly unbiased.

They say so many conflicting things on SM that some of it must be right by pure chance, someone either is or isn't a Muslim and are or are not black and are or are not illegal immigrants, are or are not young or old, etc etc, if you pick and chose snippets from all over you will find some things that are correct and a lot that are false. All of it very convincing, detailed and apparently knowledgeable which makes it so appealing, compared to the vague, limited real information actually available in the aftermath of these sort of events.

Anyone trusting X over bbc has low literacy

I wouldn’t believe the BBC. They have disappeared up their own arses.

Exactly this. Find a range of actual news sources which employ real journalists who look into things, verify them and report them. Telegraph, daily mail (I don't love their approach to women or celebs but they still have proper journos), the guardian, the times, reuters, German news sites, whatever. But not X which is unverified nonsense.

X is not one thing though. It's a stream from which one picks out gems from dross, senses vibes, and finds reliable sources, across a massive breadth and depth of expertise from across the world. Someone who reads the BBC critically and X critically will have a much better idea of what is going on than someone reading only X.

I meant to write 'than only the BBC', but both work.

Check Reuters

Just because a regulated outlet does not agree with your own views does not make it biased.

I have a strong suspicion that OP does not think that the BBC is so biased and corrupt that news from Twitter is more believable. I think she is bored this afternoon and simply wanted to emulate the great philosopher Mrs Merton one of whose catchphrases was 'Let's have heated debate'.

Personally, I generally like Occam's Razor - the simplest explanation is often the most likely to be correct. Conspiracy is a lot of complication and extra work. A Vice Chancellor we had when I worked in a university that was driven on gossip used to say 'it is rarely a conspiracy, it is usually a cock up'.

This is the big difference - mainstream media aka actual publishers of news, need to be careful what they print from an ethical and legal standpoint.
Any idiot can say what they like on X and chances are no one will pursue them for it if they're wrong or pre emptying legal action because their followership is likely to be small.

After Covid I am more sceptical of BBC reporting (as in it was promoting news the government wanted us to read, I'm not an anti-vaxxer but it was so obviously biased at that point) but I do read the news there daily.

I just know to reserve judgement
.

This. We've forgotten the basics of being an informed human.

Read widely, including from sources you typically disagree with. Read primary texts/studies etc. if you can. Trust no source completely. Keep a healthy cynicism of all sources. Weigh evidence. If something sounds wrong, it could be. If something sounds too right, that could be a dog whistle that works on you.

Be Scully.

Reuters are reporting that the suspect is anti-Islamist and that the German government had been warned about him by Saudi Arabia

BBC couldn't release info till investigation carried out-as I understand it. They cant hypothesise.