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

Or sometimes you just have to accept that you don't know, and sometimes you never will know.
It is possible to live in a state of not believing, not disbelieving, and not knowing.

Especially if it is something that does not affect your life in any way so you don't actually need to have a view one way or another.

What do you base that conclusion on?

X was already a useful news and information source pre-Musk, and is now much more useful. Because it's now a better complement to the mainstream media.

Absolutely don't believe anything you read on X these days. The BBC or any of the 'broadsheet' websites will have more accurate information.

Absolutely demonstrably false. You are saying there is no accurate information on X? There's a sea of accurate and a sea of inaccurate information on X.

Because of X/Twitter, I've found myself months or years ahead of what becomes consensus opinion on important topics, on several occasions. A lot is rubbish of course, but curating a good feed and engaging one's brain pays massive dividends.

Most general news journalists know almost nothing about the subjects they cover. Think how badly, say, basic statistics are used. Whereas on X there are large numbers of experts on almost every topic.

It puts the onus on the reader to be discerning of course, but that's probably a good thing.

Every source has bias. I don't think it's wise to rely on any one source for information. (And I personally wouldn't rely on twatter at all. It's a cesspit) It's best to read a wide variety of news and opinions from all angles and you then form your opinion from the widest possible collection of views and reports.

The BBC wouldn't label Hamas the terrorist group that they are. I don't get any news from them now. I try to read lots of other sources and put the truth together from this.

Exactly. People saying they don't believe the BBC, well fine, but they believe what they see on X?? I had to come off X because it's turned into a vile cesspit full of misinformation and outright lies.

No, the BBC report, factually, that some men are trans-women or transgender.

No, the BBC reported Scarlet Blake as transgender.

The BBC won't tell overt lies but they are very biased on a number of issues and definitely have their own agenda. I wouldn't consider X reliable at all. Someone may post something reliable but there is no way of knowing.

I usually read from multiple different sources to try to get a reasonable idea of the truth. The other thing to keep in mind is that all news agencies want to be the first with a story and will report whatever official sources say to them in the immediate aftermath of an event but the truth usually takes longer to establish by which time most people have moved onto something else even though initial reports have been updated and may differ significantly from the original.

The BBC doesn't report that a man is a woman - they sometimes report, when it's true, that a man is a trans-woman.

Exactly this.

No, but it is about whether a news source is reliable and trustworthy and this shows the BBC is not always reliable and trustworthy. The BBC have also reported that Syria has vibrant Christian and Jewish Communities where the actual estimated number of Jews remaining in Syria can be counted on one hand.

You're welcome to plough through the 'sea' of reports on Twitter, but if you think you can identify what's correct on there and what isn't, you're very naive, or dishonest.

I don’t often read the news but when I do I try to look at a range of UK sources, so yes the BBC but I’d also see what The Guardian, The Times, The Independent are saying. I would also try and look at some international sources to see what they’re saying, The New York Times and Al Jazeera often report on things very differently for example. Social media can sometimes be useful in posting videos/ images that news sources don’t but most accounts are biased and you can’t always believe that what you’re seeing is reputable. The best way to be informed is to look at as many different news sources, from as many different perspectives, as possible whilst accepting that all will likely have a bias of some kind. Realistically it’s unlikely you will ever know all of the facts and it’s impossible to know whether governments really are covering things up or if that’s conspiracy nonsense, but the wider your range of sources the greater chance you have of seeing all sides.

This. I read an article once about how media outlets will call terrorism much earlier if the suspect has died, because you the dead can’t bring a defamation case. But if the suspect survives you have to wait until an investigation is carried out.

Although I’d note in the past few months it was confirmed that the Southport attacks weren’t terror motivated - so it sounds like the BBC got it right anyway?

I heard on one channel the suspect was anti Islam. I think that was Sky News.unless I misheard.

The FT is very reliable:

Saudi Arabia warned Germany about man held over Magdeburg attack on.ft.com/4grjBUX

Anyway OP, to answer your question, I try to follow the evidence. If I don't find evidence from multiple sources that I have good ground to consider trustworthy, I then refrain from having an opinion on that topic.

For a long time I regarded the BBC as very trustworthy, and I am still glad we have the BBC as I feel they are still more neutral than news channels in American which are highly polarised and partisan. I would not like the UK to become the same. However I no longer think the BBC is as neutral and factual as I used to. I think this is due to a homogenous type of person with a certain set of politics and background who go to work at the BBC, rather than a deliberate conspiracy though. I think the BBC needs to work harder at neutrality. I get the impression Radio 4 is better at this than BBC tv channels.

It's been a long time since I've taken what the BBC say at face value. X is a million times worse.

The thing is no one knows the truth atm, I think the facts will become clearer in a few days.

Exactly this. I have no idea why anyone finds this so hard to grasp. Journalists are professionals who have standards they are required to adhere to. They can't rush to publish - they have to check and recheck their sources before going public. Unlike the impatient fools on anti-social media who want all the answers yesterday, rush to judgment and make up their own "facts" en-route to support their narrative. Their utter carelessness horrifies me - particularly when their lies lead to civil unrest. Then they squeal when they're held to account for their words (hey, just like journalists would be if they lied!) as in the aftermath of the Southport murders. Anyone who thinks anti-social media is a more reliable source of news than MSM is just another fool.

@GoldenLegend

if you think you can identify what's correct on there and what isn't, you're very naive, or dishonest.

As I say, it’s served me well on many important topics, checkable in hindsight.

eg I had a decent understanding of the efficacy of masking in COVID at a time when the official line was that masks were largely useless unless fitted professionally. Then mask supply problems were fixed and the official position shifted to support masking. We had bans on people loitering in the open air in national parks, and also Eat Out to Help Out. The BBC largely reported No 10 media briefings and I don’t recall any occasion when the BBC provided any substantive challenge or independent expertise to bear on the official line. Do you?

Meanwhile, I was able to read the views and the data from a number of excellent, credentialed, experienced epidemiologists and others with relevant facts in real time, and build up a base of understanding from that.

The skill of extracting knowledge and insight from X is not much different from what we have been doing for thousands of years. Why would we be hopeless at it?

The BBC these days have their own agenda in what they do and don't report and HOW they report different news.

His Social Media posts suggested this apparently.