40

What with the recent development in the supreme courts I'm feeling a necessity to do what I can with the time left, politically.

However, aside from the most rudimentary basic terms I am basically completely ignorant to all politics on a state and federal level, and while I'd love to sit here and self loathe for my idiocy of not learning before it was important I need to start catching up and figuring out what I should be voting on and why.

Of course I'm deathly afraid that indiscriminately googling will lead to me learning biased and compromised knowledge from sites that I don't even know are biased, ending up with a skewed and inaccurate understanding.

While I know I could still be led astray by you guys, I figured it better to ask somewhere like here than to just wander off into the internet, so can anybody help me and people like me to start getting equipped?

top 25 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] davel@lemmy.ml 26 points 4 months ago

The first step is to understand the media, which Media Bias/Fact Check and the Ad Fontes Media* are never going to teach you. The only people who are taught it are those who get degrees in marketing, public relations, political science, history, and journalism; and even then only some of them.

The new post-Trump/“post-truth” media literacy curricula won’t teach it to you either, because it was paid for and crafted by the US military-industrial complex: New Media Literacy Standards Aim to Combat ‘Truth Decay’.

This week, the RAND Corporation released a new set of media literacy standards designed to support schools in this task.

The standards are part of RAND’s ongoing project on “truth decay”: a phenomenon that RAND researchers describe as “the diminishing role that facts, data, and analysis play in our political and civic discourse.”

None of it is a secret, though, and it can be learned.


* I’ve criticized MBFC & Ad Fontes before:

[-] all-knight-party@kbin.run 3 points 4 months ago

I appreciate the information provided. I'll look into it and keep a critical mind

[-] darklamer@lemmy.dbzer0.com 22 points 4 months ago

I'd recommend starting out by reading a very biased but well researched and factually correct book, which will give you invaluable information about how it all became the way it is today, which will make it possible for you to discern who lies about what and why today:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_People%27s_History_of_the_United_States

[-] all-knight-party@kbin.run 5 points 4 months ago

Thanks! I'll take a read

[-] Diplomjodler3@lemmy.world 18 points 4 months ago

Stop worrying about bias and start caring about reality. Judge every claim on the merit of the evidence presented for it. That's all there is to it, really.

[-] ggwithgg@feddit.nl 10 points 4 months ago

You are right, but know that it can be hard for someone to judge claims.

And to answer OP: I'd say try to read qualitative, well established newspapers. They often have various overview articles and if you read articles from a couple of them then you should get a diverse view

[-] vzq@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 4 months ago

In general, this is great advice. But have you seen the dreck that comes out of the nyt lately?

[-] all-knight-party@kbin.run 3 points 4 months ago

I just mean fundamentally understanding the way the law works from the bottom up, and trying to get a handle on the ramifications that may not be obvious when it comes to the things I can vote for, especially different government positions in local and federal.

I would hate to learn about this from a biased site that omits certain information or something so that I'm crippled in my understanding

[-] Diplomjodler3@lemmy.world 5 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

To really do that you'd have to get a law degree. And every information source has some sort of bias. The way to go is look at stuff from a variety of sources.

[-] all-knight-party@kbin.run 4 points 4 months ago

I can understand that. So it seems I can find a subject that may be important, read articles from each side and be able to discern the truth from the differences between them all

[-] Diplomjodler3@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago

The "truth" is often elusive. Of course there are objective facts that can be ascertained by empirical study. But many issues, especially in politics, are based in value judgements, so there isn't really an objective truth. However, if you go by the empirical facts, it's usually easy to see who is arguing in good faith and who isn't.

[-] orcrist@lemm.ee 13 points 4 months ago

Politics is always biased. That's the point of it. There is no strictly objective reporting that has any meaning.

[-] all-knight-party@kbin.run 1 points 3 months ago

It might've been better to say that I wanted to learn information that would be presented by both sides

[-] mo_lave@reddthat.com 8 points 4 months ago
[-] all-knight-party@kbin.run 4 points 4 months ago

Thank you for this!

[-] ace_garp@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago

A similar site that lists the news-bias is:

https://ground.news/

[-] milkisklim@lemm.ee 7 points 4 months ago

If you want to do it the hard way it's time to watch CSPAN, CSPAN2, and CSPAN3. It's the only way to see what Congress is doing straight from the horse's mouth.

[-] all-knight-party@kbin.run 4 points 3 months ago

I'd never heard of these networks. Thank you

[-] swayevenly@lemm.ee 7 points 4 months ago
[-] lud@lemm.ee 9 points 4 months ago

I really like that series but it is absolutely biased as hell.

[-] intensely_human@lemm.ee 6 points 3 months ago

Wikipedia. It tends to have excellent, neutral explanations of ongoing political stories.

As a plus, every article is written to be a complete picture (at low resolution) and so you don’t have to deal with the way regular news articles lack orienting stuff if they’re an “update on the situation” article.

Like if you haven’t been following something, wikipedia articles are written in a way that brings you up to speed from zero.

[-] averyminya@beehaw.org 5 points 4 months ago

Whatever you do, think about what you read from the perspective of bettering the lives of people. If the policy or the people are saying things that come off as hateful or prejudiced, maybe that's what they're trying to accomplish.

[-] Zeratul@lemmus.org 1 points 4 months ago

I just finished listening to this. It feels like he embraces the bias, but shows that's is only as biased as the history we learn in school.

this post was submitted on 05 Jul 2024
40 points (88.5% liked)

Asklemmy

43744 readers
1320 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS