I just read that oil markets are being deliberately manipulated to drive prices higher and make the impact on the population worse. Before I share or act on it, I want to verify if it’s true.
What are your go-to methods or tools for fact-checking economic or political news? Also, which communities on Lemmy (or the wider fediverse) are best for this kind of thing?
Thanks for any tips!
I mean, apparently the oil companies are reporting record profits. Doesn’t sound to me like they are suffering at all from their supply chain being disrupted.
Profits will spike when supply is restricted because the cost to produce the product doesn’t increase. The consumer suffers because the same demand is competing for less supply. So yeah, shit sucks.
They aren’t. Kuwait is the only oil-producing country that has no other export methods than through the strait of homuz. Even Irak has a pipeline through Turkey.
Here are some quick thoughts:
Ask, who’s making the original claim and who much do they stand to gain and lose from lying about it if it were false and compare that to how much they stand to gain and lose from not covering it, if it were true. There’s pressure to lie, but there’s also pressure to report on real events. Think about material gain, but also about reputation, hype, clicks and career options. Think short term and long term.
For example, economic news offer lots of opportunity to gain from lies short term, but if an economic journal loses it’s reputation, it might lose more long-term, as investors lose trust.
If you want to compare multiple sources, make sure they have different incentive structures, or you won’t get truly different perspectives. For example compare news from imperialist and anti-imperialist countries.
To check if a story is plausible, it helps to have an historic materialist understanding of who the actors in the story are, what their history is and which classes material interests they share in.
Ideally, you shouldn’t come away from a confirmed story with the notion: “Wow it’s true, they really did that crazy thing! How dramatic and sensational!”. Rather, in confirming the story, you will have developed a deeper understanding of the underlying social forces driving individual actors decisions. So instead you’d be more like:“Now I understand why this thing that first seemed very surprising to me was bound to happen sooner or later.”
Ground.news is where to go
The people who fact check news for a living are journalists. They exist on a spectrum from dubious to trustworthy. You’ll have you find some that you like.
While it is possible today to check a lot of stuff yourself online, you can’t do it all. And if you are, you already are doing a journalist’s job.
a mix of ground.news, snopes (although they seem less reliable after their sale), looking for sources to the claim (white papers), and or seeing if i know anyone with insight (their field).
and even then being cognizant and open for nee details… i’m aware there is probably some bias and or some propaganda to sort through.
godspeed
I get news from multiple countries. That helps.
*Edit"
I’m editing this comment because I provided the wrong suggestion.
Correct link below
note that this is a video channel that doesn’t seem to produce articles. every single piece on the frontpage is clickbait. Let’s see if they’re also BS.
The End of Israel: The Ultimate Evidence
You won’t see this on the BBC or CNNThis is just what every Lemming knows about Israel already + “no apartheid could possibly endure”. The video ends on “When and how the system of ethnic supremacy in the eastern Mediterranean comes to an end is impossible to foresee, but end it will.”
I see no original research.
British Journalist UNCOVERS SHOCKING Iran War COVER-UP
You won’t see this on the BBC or CNN
Peter Oborne, US Politics, Global PoliticsThis is just “British journalism is bad”, illustrated with examples from Daily Mail, Telegraph, BBC. I mean, you’re not wrong, but…
No revelations here. The Guardian isn’t even mentioned and I think The Guardian is still pretty good.
Domestic UK affairs are undeserving of the label “Global Politics” and absolutely not “US politics”.
At this point I don’t want to analyze more videos. I’ll just post the headlines of the other four pieces on the frontpage.
HE’S ACTUALLY DOING IT: Trump, Israel, and the End of the Global Economy
The ULTIMATE Betrayal
Richard Sanders - US Politics, Global PoliticsLowkey EXPOSES Trump’s Iran War for Israel
Lowkey EXPOSES Trump’s Iran War for Israel
Lowkey - US Politics, Global PoliticsIran War EXPOSED: The Video Trump Doesn’t Want You To See
How Trump BETRAYED America for Israel
Matt Kennard - US Politics, Global PoliticsWhy Trump REALLY Attacked Iran
The Chilling Truth Behind Trump’s Dark Agenda
Lowkey - US Politics, Global Politicsnote this neat, website-exclusive disclosure:
The views expressed in this video belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of DDN.
unwilling to take accountability, DDN’s editorial board does not seem strong.
That’s not the sort of content I encountered on YouTube. Now I’m thinking I sent the wrong link.
okay I double checked cause I had a few videos saved
Yeah I think I was mixed up.
The icons are both Ds and I definitely mixed them up with each other.
I just did a quick Google search to get the home page. And looked at the “about” and was like . Yeah that’s it. But I’m pretty sure I made a mistake. I didn’t mean to recommend ddN. But DW
It’s DW news. Not DDN.
Yeah double down is clickbait. Like all of it. Yikes.
ah, Deutsche-Welle, Germany’s NPR. they are really good, and they publish articles too.
Yeah it’s high quality and independent investigations, not just repeating what everyone else says. I really like it and they seem to go in depth a bit more.
I mistakenly thought it was a smaller news organization. It’s pretty big.
I’d start by getting a bit more specifics, as it is very difficult to prove/disprove very vague claims.
For example:
- Where did you read about it?
- Which oil markets are being manipulated?
- Who is doing the manipulating?
- Which population(s) is/are affected?
I try to preface the information I share with my source(s) and what I think about it’s validity. I judge the validity based on the source(s) I get it from, how many different outlets are reporting the same, but maybe more important is the comment section. It’s always useful to see what other people, often smarter people, think about the article. Also, often multiple sides develop that can bring a more nuanced view. Keep in mind that most comment sections are echo chambers, and treat the comments as signals just like the statement the article is making. Nothing is true or false, it is just more or less likely
