I'd broaden the statement to say that news sources should implicitly be distrusted on the grounds that there is no method of identifying reliable from unreliable information, unlike properly peer reviewed research or even better, direct evidence. If used as a starting point during governmental and AI proliferation of information, we might be able to actually return to a reasonably navigable social model for the human experience.
replyI don't honestly know why this is so difficult for humans to just do on our own, but alas...
> unlike properly peer reviewed research
replyPeer reviewed research should also be implicitly distrusted, unless it has several decades of evidence or independent verification and replication!
Just because bunch of people agree on something, does not mean there is no conflict of interest, or they are just crooks! If 99% of source materials are not published, classified or even censored ---> major red flag!
Look how in past scientists denied smoking or asbestos causes cancer!