You can use a shitty news article about a particular relevant topic that contains some questionable issues, and then search around for people that actually know what they are talking about.
Exert some of your own effort to find good sources. Don't trust the first thing you read. This is ultimately the problem imo.
It's also not without failure modes. Lets say you just follow certain journalists/sleuths on certain topics that's basically filter bubbling by design.
Doing your own research to finding sources is imo the best thing, but it just doesn't scale. If i personally checked every single thing i've read today, that would be a full time job (aaand we've just invented journalists again to solve THAT problem)
I think the 'pay attention to the media source and journalist and decide if you think they're good' is a viable route in the meantime even in the context you provided.
The look stuff up yourself kinda thing always reminds me of the conspiracy theories that people develop after they 'research'.... it's so easy to find what you want to find...
I don't like this, again because of filter bubbles. It's very easy to fall into a 'i don't agree with this person, they must be wrong' trap.
> The look stuff up yourself kinda thing always reminds me of the conspiracy theories that people develop after they 'research'.... it's so easy to find what you want to find...
I would argue that this is what we're doing on HN though. HN has a policy of preferring the primary source.