1. First, where exactly did you hear this? Local news? Public TV? UK newspapers? Foundations with agendas?
You have to assign a value to it, and say on a scale of one to ten....the 'who' should rise above a '6' as a minimum. I should state for the record....even crappy sites will occasionally surprise you with an element of truth.
If there is a picture involved....is it a valid picture that the source used?
2. Is there an agenda tied to the story? If you establish yes....how big or bold is the agenda?
3. A fact-checker already validating or invalidating the story...rather quickly? Why?
Is this a magnet to suggest the somewhat vague story is validated....when common sense says it's mostly a false story?
4. Read enough to at least know the broad landscape of the topic. You don't need to be at some PhD level, but you ought to have some basic knowledge.
5. Finally, the pause. On some stories....I'll pick up on a Monday, and pause for 24-to-48 hours before I render an opinion...because more information comes out and changes the perception of the situation.
No comments:
Post a Comment