Hacker News Reader

Biased sources are more reliable when they make a statement contrary to their expected bias then when they do so for it, so a statement painting the “special military operation” as a successful war of territorial aggrandizement, when the public position of the regime has been that that is not the goal, is more reliable than ones in line with public regime propaganda.

View on HN

The problem with all of this is you have to correctly assess their "expected bias". And this assessment is, in turn, affected by your own bias which you have not considered in your analysis. Given this, it seems easy to fall into the trap of just accepting whatever already fits your narrative and discarding the rest.

> Biased sources are more reliable when they make a statement contrary to their expected bias then when they do so for it,

Is this supposed to be a comprehensible sentence fragment?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com