Information gathering

Since the inauguration, I have heard multiple concerns about how to keep up and whom to trust. I will also often be asked about a specific news source and whether they are reliable.

There is no one answer for that. 

There are sources that print some good things and some bad things, where in this case "good" and "bad" conveys a mix of accuracy, importance, and usefulness. 

Sometimes the bad things are more clearly editorial in nature where they at least aren't going to lie, but what if they are posting accurate information but leaving crucially important things unreported? 

The first thing to note is that this is an exhausting situation. Don't think that there is something wrong with you if you are finding it untenable.

The next thing becomes finding what works for you. Different people have different needs.

A lot of people love Heather Cox Richardson, a historian at Boston College who has started publishing a newsletter on the health of American democracy. In addition to being up-to-date on the current situation, she uses her knowledge of history to provide context, allowing for a deeper understanding.

https://www.facebook.com/heathercoxrichardson

https://heathercoxrichardson.substack.com/ 

I personally find her posts too long, but part of that is because so much of it is familiar. Some of that is probably a bit of an attention deficit on my part.

If she works for you, embrace that. If not, don't fret.

I will also note that Timothy Snyder has a substack. He is especially solid on Ukraine, Nazis, and Soviets:

https://substack.com/@snyder

Something new that interests me is Musk Watch, introduced today by Judd Legum. It is specifically focusing on what DOGE is reporting and the reality.:

https://www.muskwatch.com/p/introducing-the-musk-watch-doge-tracker  

So far it seems to be focusing on the accuracy (or lack thereof) of the claims, not whether or not any savings would be worth the proposed cuts. That's important information, but not everything. You are not going to find a single source for everything.

Good at being succinct while still backing up her claims is Rachel Maddow at MSNBC.

https://www.rachelmaddow.com/

We love https://ourparks.org/altnps. 

Honestly, we are not at a great point in time for US news. Be open to seeing what organizations based in other countries say. 

https://www.aljazeera.com/

I have previously been pretty happy with The Guardian UK, but I have this vague sense that they are slipping. I am still not outright dismissing their work, but I am not quite comfortable recommending it.

I would say don't listen to Russia Today, but it would allow you to notice how aligned Trump and Musk are with the Kremlin, which seems important. 

I am probably going to have to be changing my methods soon, as a lot of my sources are leaving Twitter.  

There are things that I will look at as I evaluate different stories.

• Are the sources credible? Are there named sources? Are the sources in a position to know?
• Are any other outlets carrying the story? If not, why not?
• Are they showing bias based on the phrasing or images used? Is there an agenda showing?
• Does it contain any obviously false or misleading information?
• Does the headline match the story? 

Often the headline is done by the paper; if you see a crummy headline on a good article, that is not enough of a reason to discount it. However, if you notice one news source keeps using rage-baiting headlines that don't accurately reflect the content, that may be a good reason to avoid that source, if for no other reason than to lower your blood pressure. 

Also, remember that under white supremacy, perspective varies greatly based on your privilege. Make sure that you are hearing from people more marginalized than you.