There's your solution right there, dig to find the truth on your own.
It's not nearly as easy as it should be, since we are constantly bombarded on all sides with twists and distortions of the truth. Confirming something from two difference sources generally makes something a confident fact, but they need to be at least two independent sources. For example, the above story on the college classroom can be found, almost verbatim, parroted at hundreds or thousands of different blogs. You confirm things at FoxNation, Briebart, The Blaze and WND and conclude what they all say is a fact, because they're not independent sources. They are all using the same source material and all have the same slant.
As RLENT aptly noted, you have to be willing to approach things with an open mind, realize and accept that your own preconceived ideas just might be wrong (as unsettling and uncomfortable as that might be). You have to approach things from the same point of view as a juror in a trial, one who knows that both sides want to win and they'll twist and distort things, even lie, to get you to believe them.
In the college classroom story, let's take a close look. Fact: The Onion and Fox News were listed as prohibited sources for research articles. Then we have this sentence: "No other media or research sources — such as, say, just for example, MSNBC — appear to be prohibited outright."
Most people, especially those with a base of preconceived ideas and biases, will take that at face value as a fact. In the context of the reported list of prohibited sources, the sentence is a true fact, as in that very narrow context no other sources indeed "appear to be prohibited outright." But is that the true context of the fact? As it turns out, no. The sentence is pure, rationalized, editorial comment, and to someone with an open mind looking for the truth, it should be ignored.
It's a sentence that begs a question, a question that was never asked (or at least, was never never reported). That question being, "Were those, indeed, the only prohibited sources?" And that sentence set the tone of the bias and became the foundation for the article.
Another favorite sentence in the article that molds thought and opinion is, "Upset students and some parents complained to local press outlets about what they perceived as forced political bias." That doesn't really tell you very much. "Upset students" could be two, and "some parents" could be one set of uninformed wackos. And "perceived" means something speculated and believed. But to those who aren't necessarily looking for the truth in context, it tells them that many students and parents were outraged about a forced political bias, even though no forced-bias has been shown. It's only believed, and it's believed on limited information, at that. They also don't tell you that "the local press outlets" consists totally of one conservative shock jock where they called into him on his radio show to voice their complaints.
The use of words like "appear", "perceived" and "apparently" are red flags to indicate opinion, less-than-complete facts, and speculation. But to most people, and especially those who already have the same prejudiced bias on the subject, those words get subconsciously transformed into the far more definitive "are", "know", and "is".
By the end of the article, using the foundation of speculation and literal bias, the characterization of "the Fox News-hating prof" is met by the reader as a "well, duh!" redundant moment. The only way a journalist can ethically characterize the professor as a "Fox News-hating prof" is if that journalist could quote the professor saying, "I hate Fox News." Anything else is pure, unadulterated speculation.
So, you have to use a little common sense (do professors really conduct themselves and their classes in this manner, by handing out instructions on paper with no other additional information or context?) and try to find more information, especially information from completely different sources. One, certainly, would be a student in the class. The more students you can use as research sources the better. Another would be independent news outlets not affiliated with Fox News, since it the article was sourced from Fox News. Local newspapers is a good start. If the story isn't also reported in other news outlets as actual news, then that's a red flag that it's not even news. And another source would be academic publications and news sources, like the University newspaper or places like Inside Higher Ed where they deal with big picture issues of things that happen all across academia.
News facts are garnered from the Five Ws, the Who, What, When, Where, Why, and How. (I know that's five and one H. It's sometimes called "The Five Ws and one H," or even the "Six Ws," but journalists know what you mean when you say the Five Ws).
- Who is it about?
- What happened?
- When did it take place?
- Where did it take place?
- Why did it happen?
- How did it happen
The problem comes when the reporter, especially in political stories, answer the "Why did it happen?" with their own interpretation of why. Many times the "why" isn't known, but many reporters (and/or news agencies) will give you that "why" in order to tell you what to think about it. (One red flag is when a reporter uses the word "Because" to describe why - it's not a W or an H).
Anything you are told beyond the scope of the Five Ws is extraneous crap that can be avoided, because all of it, every word of it, is there to tell what to think about the story.
Yeah, in the case of the financial meltdown, both sides blamed each other, but it's not really blame you're looking for, it's the details and facts. Once you have those, you don't have to worry about placing blame, because you'll know what happened. A lot of people accept a "blame" as a fact, but it's editorial, an accusation, assertion. And without evidence to back it up, it means nothing.
In a case like that, where one side blames the other, you can often discern many of the facts just using those two sources (let's say, for the sake of argument, that those two sources are Fox News and MSNBC, each the antithesis of the other). You look at both sides carefully to find facts they are in agreement with. There's your foundation. You then look at the facts which they disagree with, knowing full well that each side will omit information that makes them look bad or they find uncomfortable to deal with. You then turn to completely difference sources, not your favorite Blogger or partisan Web site, for more facts to glean. If you are looking to confirm a Fox News assertion as being a fact, you try to find two additional, completely unrelated sources, who state the same fact. As long as you are reasonably confident that nether used Fox News as their source, then you can be reasonably confident that it's an independent fact, and you can trust Fox News on that one fact.
As for Hagel getting conformed, and whether or not he should be, you have to look at his record yourself, rather than being told what to think, and then make up your own mind. I agree with RLENT on Hagel, because Hagel has been shown to be cautious, measured, and pragmatic. I am, by nature, very pragmatic. I try my best to see both sides of an issue, mainly because I'm not so arrogant to think my own personal opinion is always right. The reason I'm not so arrogant is because I've been wrong about many things on many occasions. If I've been wrong once, I can be wrong again.
