In my last post, someone in the comments section asked me for a list of sources that I trust and tend to listen to with confidence that they are telling the truth. I am going to do this with two statements up front: 1) I trust them; me, in my opinion they are reliable and honest. You may disagree, and that is fine. There is no truly unbiased, 100% accurate, never-wrong individual, company, or concern. Everything tilts a little bit. 2) My reasons for trusting, my modus operandi follows the list, and generally I would share them/it first, but I have not been asked why I trust sources, just who the sources are that I trust, so in the interest of actually, factually, and honestly answering the question asked, I put the list first. (See what I did right there?)

Reuters – the gold standard for what is happening in the world. I often recommend Reuters but hear back from people, “but it is SO boring.” But it is not boring, it is just that it is not sensational. Reuters offers information rather than opinion and/or insight. It delivers facts. And it covers the globe, and sadly many in the U.S. simply could care less what happens in the rest of the world.

Associated Press – so, if you care about the U.S. first and foremost, head to A.P. Many other news sources quote A.P. freely, though there is an irritating and disingenuous trend to pull A.P. info out of context and put right or left spin to the original. When you see CNN or Fox News “quote” A.P. take the few seconds it will require to go directly to A.P. to see what they actually report.

BBC – for the quickest summary of “I wonder what’s going on in the world today?” check out BBC. NOT BBC America. Believe it or not, they really aren’t related and you can actually get a different report. BBC seems most interested in telling what is happening without too much speculation about why it is happening or what the potential implications might be. BBC seeks to inform more than to persuade or stir up.

The Independent – with a quick caveat. While claiming non-partisanship The Independent will weigh in with opinions on what they see as absurd, irrational, and/or potentially dangerous, so their bias is often on display, and regarding politics they can slide from news to noise, BUT they do it with equal intensity across the political spectrum.

Pew Research Center – not only does Pew conduct excellent polling, survey, statistical, and anecdotal research, its data analysis, and integration of scientific methodology is objective, concise, and first rate. Gallup does some fine polling, and Barna generally finds what it is looking for, but for factual, informative, and reliable research, Pew cannot be beat.

ProCon.org (Britannica) – want to understand why there is controversy over an issue and how different segments of the population feel about the issue? Go to ProCon.org. ProCon raises an issue or question, explains it to a great but reasonable extent, offers exceptional background information, then analyzes how people respond. Almost always informative.

Social Media/Bloggers/Podcasters – don’t trust us! We all have an ax to grind. We are all biased. Most social media is antisocial at its core. Pay attention to the whole concept of Influencer. Influencers do not exist to teach or inform, but to confirm, validate, or create value. It is fine to find people you like and agree with, but they will rarely challenge you to think differently, critically, deeply, or transformatively. While we might wish to change the world for the better, we often simply preach to the choir.

Individuals? Here is shift from specifics to governing principles. Discerning who is trustworthy, honest, and informative contains too many variables for one person to tell another person who to trust. An example. I trust Robert Reich. If you don’t know who he is, take a moment to Google him. He is an uber-liberal, deeply opinionated, politically savvy, incredibly intelligent, and has a sardonic wit. So, why should I trust him? Because he knows what he is talking about, is honest in his appraisals, and clear in his intent. Expertise, clarity, motive.

Here are my guiding principles for trusting information: 1) expertise, 2) sources, 3) respect, 4) confluence, 5) accuracy, 6) objectivity.

Expertise – when I am sick, I don’t call a plumber. When I am hungry, I don’t go to the drugstore. When I want to be entertained, I don’t call a lawyer. Why should I care what J.D. Vance thinks about theology, R.F.K., Jr. thinks about medicine, or Taylor Swift thinks about Donald Trump, or Aaron Rodgers about anything? I trust scientists who do good science, actors who stick to acting, athletes who communicate on the field/court, and absolutely no politicians about anything. I have spent a lifetime studying theology, the Bible, other sacred texts, philosophy, critical thinking and systems theory. I marvel when people want to know my opinion about culture, politics, the Epstein files, etc. Why should my thoughts on any of these things matter? Ask me about the Trinity, Process Theology, Hylozoism, and I can offer some actual, verifiable, honest, and accurate information. (Okay, okay – hylozoism is the belief that EVERYTHING is alive. People, rocks, leaves, cheese sandwiches, Mitch McConnell…). When someone like Marjorie Taylor Greene offers an opinion on ANYTHING, check her bona fides. What is her actual area of expertise. If what she is talking about doesn’t align, don’t pay attention.

Sources – this is SO easy. Verify what you hear. Check primary sources – if someone “quotes” Reuters, click the hyperlink and check out what Reuters actually said. If they omit the hyperlink, don’t even bother – they don’t want you to be able to fact check them, so assume they are not being completely honest. READ FOOTNOTES* If a claim is made and there is a footnote supposedly supporting the claim, check it out. I remember reading a book on creationism by a guy named Ken Ham that was extensively footnoted. However, almost every footnote was citing something else Ham had written as validation for his claim. Shame, shame. If something doesn’t sound or smell right, take the few minutes to dig deeper. Let me illustrate with a comparison of three recent books – from the sublime to the ridiculous. Democracy Awakening by Heather Cox Richardson, Regime Change by Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Swan, and Fear Itself by Tammy Bruce. Three books focusing on politics in America in light of the influence of Donald Trump. Richardson does a wonderful job explaining what is happening, how it is happening, the impact of what is happening, and, spoiler, she’s not comfortable with it and doesn’t think you should be either. Now, this is true of the other two books, so what is different? Richardson uses source material to build a powerful argument, to dispel some misinformation and mythical thinking, and to offer helpful suggestions for navigating our current perilous reality. Her analysis is informative, illuminating, and honest, even in its subjectivity. Haberman and Swan do an excellent job with what they do, but they leave out as much as they put in. They are less concerned with recovering a healthy sense of democracy and more intent on showing what a negative impact Trump, MAGA, and an ineffective cabinet and staff have on our democracy. Their sourcing is solid, just selective. Which brings us to Bruce. Fear Itself is one of the most poorly researched, reasoned, written, and intended books I have read in years. References and footnotes are included simply to reinforce the bias and vitriol of the author, who could care less about facts, truth, information, or anything beyond indoctrination. Twist, spin, manipulate, misinform, agitate, aggravate, and attack – do everything you can to inspire more fear, and blame it on your opponents. Yikes! Richardson treats sources with respect; Haberman and Swan as tools; Bruce with contempt.

Respect – immediately reject anyone or any source that uses name-calling, labeling, dismissive language, and/or insult to make their points. Grade school playground behavior belongs on the grade school playground, not in the mature adult culture, be it politics, religion, business, industry, science, medicine, music, cinema, literature, etc. Sure, there is a place for solid satire and parody, but most humorists and YouTubers have taken it too far, but mostly in response to how far our supposed leaders have taken it. If you think you will be informed and are being treated honestly by those who call each other “scum,” “losers,” “piggy,” or attach mocking names, or use sexist and racist terms as humor, please think again. Don’t trust such folks. This also goes for people who use labels inappropriately. If you hear someone call opponents or themselves “socialists,” “Marxists,” “communists,” “fascists,” etc., do two things. First, look up those terms in a dictionary or on Wikipedia so you have a baseline from which to judge, then, second, look at what the people being charged actually say, promise, or proclaim. The two seldom line up. Using Tammy Bruce as an example once more, she calls Democrats/liberals/moderates/progressives/average Americans “Marxists” dozens of times in her book. Either a) she has no idea what Marxism is, or b) she knows and doesn’t care because she thinks her audience is so ignorant they won’t care that she is using the term improperly.**

Confluence – Integrity might serve just as well. How well do words and actions align? Does it feel like some heavy duty rationalization and spin is occurring? Does a person committing an act blame someone else? Does a person say something publicly one day then deny it the next? Does someone reframe reality using AI? Does someone use misleading terms to deflect negative connotations like calling a “war” something less emotionally charged? Does someone claim something early in their career then deny it later on? Does it seem that values, integrity, morals, or truth is denied for personal gain? Why do lawyers, politicians, and used car salespersons have the reputations that they do? Come on, this is an easy one. Trust your gut. If it comes to your mind that someone might be a hypocrite, they probably are or you wouldn’t even question it.

Accuracy – When is a question not a question? Here are three examples. Which is actually a question and which two are not? (These are actual questions reporters asked in the last few weeks.) 1) Why won’t you tell us the truth about what is happening on the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln? 2) Don’t you feel you owe it to the families of the service men and women to share what you know about the terrible conditions on the U.S.S. Lincoln? 3) Could you please update us on the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln? (For the record, the response to all three questions was to insult the person asking it.) If a headline or statement relies on or includes invective move on to something else. “So and so humiliates self in Senate hearing,” is not information, but opinion. Don’t bother reading further.

Objectivity – I place this last rather than first, because, to be honest, objectivity is a subjective term. There is no such thing as a value-free, bias-free, error-free perspective. One of my favorite psychological experiments from college was a red square on the left side of a piece of poster board. On the right side of the poster were 24 squares of various shades of red, including the square on the left. The experiment was simple: match the square on the left with its twin in the field of 24 on the right. Eight (8) percent got it correct. Only one-in-twelve, and who knows how many of those debated within themselves and just guessed. We see what we see and once we see it, objectivity is replaced by subjectivity. What I look for is analysis that presents both or multiple sides to an issue or idea. I dismiss articles and stories that jump to conclusions, make assumptions, build on inferences, and reflect implicit and explicit biases.

Okay, this has gone almost long enough (too long for some), but I also want to tag one last annoyance onto this apologetic diatribe: Don’t let the opposition define you. Listen to conservatives to define conservatism. Listen to progressives to define progressivism. Republicans, Democrats, Independents, Could-Care-Lessers, Socialists, Potatoes, Curmudgeons, LGBTQIA+, Immigrants, Muslims, Atheists, and Elon Musk all have the right to be who they are, and they should also have the right to DEFINE who they are and why they think, act, and feel like they do. The minute a straight/white/young/female beauty-influencer starts telling you about the horrors of intersectionality or how all men suck or why you should prevent your kids from being vaccinated, just top listening and go watch Netflix. You will actually benefit much more and you will probably end up smarter.

*Good job!

**If you want a great fact check on “socialism”, check out Which Countries Are Actually Socialist? by Scott Beyer on The Independent