Wise Evaluation of News Reports & Reporters

I finally got back to Ya’acov Apelbaum’s amazing blog where I always learn something & frequently get my mind blown.  He has provided some great tips for the wise evaluation of news reporters & reports in the comments section of a recent post, found here:


copied from the amazing news aggregator WhatFinger.com

  • When evaluating any report/reporter, I try to ask the following questions:

    1. What is the source of the report (using statements like “speaking on condition of anonymity…” can be categorically classified as manipulative)?
    2. Why is the reporter sharing this information and not another story (is this part of a broader narrative)?
    3. Are there any flaws in the information (even a small flaw can disqualify the whole story)?
    4. How did the reporter learn this information and why were they chosen by the source?
    5. Does the reporter have documented history of dishonesty?
    6. How is the reporter benefiting from transmitting this information?
    7. What is the age and gender of the reporter (attractive younger female reporters are more likely to exchange sexual favors for high value information)?
    8. Is the reporter transmitting secret or classified information (typically obtained via some illegal collection and makes them accessories to a crime)?
    9. Does the reporter have an emotional attachment to the story?
    10. Does the reporter have a pattern of reporting and promoting certain topics?
    11. Does the reporter understand the low level details of his reports and can they explain them?
    12. Is the reporter promoting an ideology?
    13. Is the news organization promoting a narrative that is tied to its corporate interests
    14. What did the reporter do before working for the current news outlet?
    15. Is the reporter or his family benefiting financially or professionally from the report or source?
    16. Who is in the reporter’s social network?
    17. Is the reporter using third party experts to prop the story and who are these experts?
    18. Is there a revolving door in the news organization where sources become contributors?
    19. Is the reporter working for a ‘state’ news agency? (Al Jazeera, RT, the BBC, etc. reflect government propaganda and foreign policy objectives)?
    20. Does the reporter have any known character flaws (i.e. committing sexual harassment or shielding another sexual harasser)?
    21. Does the reporter have an unusual number of scoops and/or industry awards (could be an indication of some sort of a Mephistophelian contract)?

    Once you take these and other questions into account, it’s easy to evaluate information processors like CNN, NYT, or Google and classify them as propaganda mills. You can also apply these same evaluation methods to independent sources like blogs.

    In general, (1) truth tends to be rich in detail, have a organic look and feel to it, and be supported by a variety of people and events, (2) made-up events on the other hand, tend to be more linear, syntactic, and feature a skeletal set of characters. The reason for this is that in case 1, the plot-line is generated by the universe, in case 2, the plot-line is generated by someone with a constrained imagination and resources.

    I’m not sure what the long term solution to the news reliability problem is. I think that when it comes to the social media/internet platforms, we should either force them out of the news collation and classification business or regulate them as news outlets. They should be forced to choose one or the other. If they chose to become news outlets, and the likes of Google/FB continue to sensor search results, then they should be open to civil claims like civil rights violations, hate crimes, and discrimination. There is also no reason why entities like Google—which are a classic monopoly—shouldn’t be broken up to multiple business units.

    As far as MSN, its little more complicated because of historical precedent, but considering the fact that they no longer report the news but manufacture it, opening them up to a corporate and personal liability claims could put them back on track. Either way, I think that we need to re evaluate the definition of freedom of the press and enact new laws regarding the use of protected sources and the ability to publish classified/illegally obtained information. If a news outlet can’t clear most of the questions in the list above, cite their source for the story, or use only legally obtained information, they shouldn’t publish the piece.


FYI, I copied his comment “as is” & added ellipses (…) when removing a couple portions not relevant to my post here.

This is great advice for any of us needing to evaluate information & news reports & reporters in the ongoing quest for truth…

See the source image

This blogger has also done amazing work exposing a lot of the Deep State players & connections at one of his most important posts well worth reviewing here:


See the source image

Thanks for checking in & may the Lord bless us as we continue to seek the Truth!

See the source image

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s