Again, super cool but totally not the point at all. I get it. You don't give fucks. Awesome. But those sources of information were correct about certain things and thus, dismissing them based on who or what they are means you will miss that they might have been correct about actual tangible facts.
Basically I follow this path for information:
Once "News" gets loud enough to be heard, actioned on, and impacts me personally or incidentally, I'll look into it.
---
For example, say Rush has definitive proof that aliens exist.
- No one picks up on it (other news locations)
- It has very little impact on anyone because they exist but aren't interacting with us at all
I wouldn't give this a second thought, it has no impact on me and won't ever have an impact unless shit started happening.
---
Take a "real" example right:
Hillary Clintons email server and classified information
- Divisive information that both sides are contesting
- No repercussions happened to her because of it
- 0 impact on me personally
I didn't give this a second thought other than memeing. Furthermore, it wouldn't matter since even if it was undisputed fact nothing would happen to her because of her actions.
Chants of "Lock Her up" were nothing other than trolling in my opinion, to think that she would go to jail was a fantasy that a few people indulged in (one person being my dad).
---
Right. But then you do your OWN research right? Like you just said. From where? What sources? What people? Where do you do the "boot-work" to get to the "real" story about the facts that you are presenting?
I just gave you a pile of boot-work links that have sources you can check and sources from those sources you can check that prove your statement was factually incorrect. I would love to see your boot-work that says I am wrong, why I am wrong and how they came to those conclusions.
Honestly I just read or consume multiple sides, typically Twitter to find a starting point and then branch from there. USUALLY I'm not lookign for deep information unless it is a new law so I'm mainly looking for conformation.
That basically looks as simple as it sounds, if the claim is reasonable and both sides are talking about it from the side of their talking point, the topic may likely be true.
If I am looking up laws, I read the actual laws, if i can find them.
If i am looking up he-said she-said, Twitter-MSM..whatever.
If I'm looking up statistics, I try and find a source that is related to the statistic. (this one is getting harder since now states and other sources are omitting some data because of presure from political groups.)