News

I'll take centuries old sources with a long history of at least reasonably balanced writing over an overtly political source using inflammatory language any day of the week. I also seek multiple sources and points of view. Critical thinking demands it. Just because no source is entirely neutral doesn't mean you throw up your hands and totally discard all sources except the ones that match your preferred world-view.

This response is not directed to you alone, I'm including the general population, so I'm not asserting any particular belief about you specifically, but instead am making a point that everyone needs to remember and use based on what you said. That's my disclaimer that I am not attacking you.

The LA Times, for example, has a long history, much of it conservative, but it's more recent history has been both centrist and generally lauded for it's quality.

In 2004 the newspaper was awarded five Pulitzer Prizes, the most it had ever won in a single year; by 2015 the Times had received more than 40 Pulitzers. The newspaper also launched a series of new initiatives in the early 21st century, including the online venture TheEnvelope.com (2005), which provided up-to-the-minute coverage of entertainment awards shows, and a partnership with Bloomberg News (2006) to conduct national opinion polls on various political, economic, social, and cultural topics.

World Socialist Website, on the other hand is unabashedly biased. It does have assessments of being mostly factual, which is good. That's rarely the case for it's right-leaning peers. Take note of the fact I am looking for third party information from sources with no (visible, at least) skin in the game or affiliation to the thing it is evaluating.

I personally tend to read the center to left-leaning side (used to read some AlterNet, DemocracyNow, HuffPost, Daily Kos fairly often), but I didn't and don't ignore the center (where I frequently read/watch now) and am very careful when I read on the right. If it smells fishy, and I don't already know it's bullshit, I'll check. If it goes against my belief system, but seems honest, I'll also check - maybe I'm wrong about something. Even the ones I tend to agree with, I will look around and see who else is saying the same vs saying the opposite, vs pointing out a detail unsaid elsewhere that might change the logical conclusion of the topic.

And that right there is the key. Never let your sense of identity be bound up with a cause or movement. At best, you instantly become prone to a narrow, rigid world view, and at worst, cultism. When your sense of who you are is threatened, you're most likely to deny objective truth that counters your world view.

Hold beliefs and values, but loosely. Always be willing to admit when things change or when you're wrong. Reevaluate periodically, and let yourself grow. Base your values, beliefs, perceptions of people on as much objective information as possible along with your own self-honest observation. Remember anecdotal evidence is on too small a scale to indicate a large-scale truth.