News outlets are generally graded by their historical reputabilitiy. If you find yourself continuously fact checking it, maybe consider following a better news outlet (even if they publish more "boring" stories that aren't as "up to date"): https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources

I would also love to see a better place for keeping news outlets accountable for their bad publishing actions. Wikipedia does, but it happens on discussion pages and it relies on human editors who know where those discussions happened to string it together

I mean, yeah.

Also probably extremely unqualified to be one.

We really should get way more research methodology stuff into school curriculums from much earlier.

yeah sorta. journalism was supposed to be more about fact checking back in that day rather than first to post. The rumor mill filled that niche. Does seem like news nowadays is more like the rumor mill.

So I just got out of a conference talk from a guy that ran newsrooms for about 20 years and has moved on to other things. The last few years have been basically "get it written, get it out the door and fact check later if time allows". These people working in these rooms have been cut back 90%+ but are still expected to get the same volumes of articles published as were when there were 10X the staff.

He said it's completely impossible to do any verification with what they have to work with, and chances are the stories are written before the people involved are interviewed. That's why he got out.

Well I'm something of a ~~scientist~~ Journalist myself

News stopped being news when the 24 hour news cycle started. Now it’s just entertainment.

Yes. An unpaid one.

ITT: the justification for civics education.

Legitimate news outlets do pretty thorough fact-checking, if only to avoid litigation

It makes you a rational human.

There have been journalists publishing accidentally and maliciously false articles since the dawn of the press.

It's healthy to engage in appropriate scepticism of all that you read, particularly that of the press. Fact check everything that doesn't feel right (or anything that feels too reductive or simplified), over time you get a feel for who the serial liars are and who are generally reporting faithfully

When reading hard news from an outlet that actually hires journalists I consider that to be the source.

When reading opinion I definitely do a bit more digging, keeping an eye out for half truths. I wouldn't consider this to be journalism