If one wishes to be well informed about politics, one must sort through a biased and propaganda based media landscape. The actual truth of what is really going on is out of reach, so all we can really hope for is to find the "most likely" truth by sorting through the biased and propaganda media heap, searching for enough information that we can use to form a well informed political stance. The key to this process that I am describing though, depends on having an end goal of being well informed.
An example of not having the goal of being well informed is when somebody has a goal of creating, enforcing, or promoting a specific political agenda or ideology. When this is the goal, the actual truth is not of interest, but rather something to censor, block, or navigate around. When people have this type of goal, they will limit their media sources to ones that support this goal. Media sources that offer information that conflicts with the ideology or agenda are opposed, rejected, or censored, since they only stand in the way of what is being created or enforced.
For those who pursue the truth, every media source is as valuable, regardless of what political bias motivated it. The most dangerous media we can sift through in search of the truth can be the kind that says what we want to hear, and some of the best can be the ones who we view as lies and fake news. I see forum members here discrediting articles simply because they come from Huffpo, Breitbart, or other far right or left sources, but the origin of the source is not relevant to the truth. Regardless of how far left or right some of these sources are, or even what their track record is, they still offer propaganda that should be sifted through for clues.
An example of not having the goal of being well informed is when somebody has a goal of creating, enforcing, or promoting a specific political agenda or ideology. When this is the goal, the actual truth is not of interest, but rather something to censor, block, or navigate around. When people have this type of goal, they will limit their media sources to ones that support this goal. Media sources that offer information that conflicts with the ideology or agenda are opposed, rejected, or censored, since they only stand in the way of what is being created or enforced.
For those who pursue the truth, every media source is as valuable, regardless of what political bias motivated it. The most dangerous media we can sift through in search of the truth can be the kind that says what we want to hear, and some of the best can be the ones who we view as lies and fake news. I see forum members here discrediting articles simply because they come from Huffpo, Breitbart, or other far right or left sources, but the origin of the source is not relevant to the truth. Regardless of how far left or right some of these sources are, or even what their track record is, they still offer propaganda that should be sifted through for clues.