Honest, sincere question: 5/15 '17
Honest, sincere question:
What does a news article or report need so you'll consider it "not fake"? I imagine some folks may just dismiss any news they disagree with as "fake news." But I'm trying to assess what criteria need to be satisfied in order for someone to accept that what is being presented, whether they agree with the article's viewpoint or not, as "reported accurately."
I acknowledge that humans are gloriously imperfect, and that it is physically impossible to report something without imparting some molecule of bias/slant. But anyway.
If you are left-leaning, are you capable of reading an article from Breitbart or PrisonPlanet and evaluate it with the mindset that it could potentially be accurate? If the Washington Post cites a source "who only spoke on the condition of anonymity," would you be more apt to believe it's "real" and not "fake?" What if Breitbart cited an anonymous source? Would you instantly think, "This is bullshit" and roll your eyes? What if they interviewed Comey directly?
If you are fervent Trump supporter, is it even possible for you to read something on The Huffington Post or even the Washington Post and believe it's within the realm of possibility that it may be accurate? What if they cite an anonymous source? What if they cite a primary source? What if they interviewed Comey himself, for example?
What criteria need to be met for you to feel satisfied that the reporter is reporting accurate information? Do you need unedited video from Trump himself? If he were incriminating himself, would you dismiss it as doctored video?
I'm struggling with this.
(x-posted to DW.)