Russian election interference

[MurphOnMillerAve]

...and where did those libraries, encyclopedias, and "reference books" and magazines get their information, which we trusted and, therefore, cited in our footnotes and bibliographies?

There was actually trust put into the academics and the researchers that assembled that information. Once upon a time, we could trust those sources. That has since faded to trust but verify, doubt all, and discount anything that one disagrees with or finds inconvenient.

So which method seems best? Both - for their particular circumstances and time in history?

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Some of those same sources are now available on-line.

With respect to cross checking, reputable material has citations, references that can searched, independently is you wish (in case you don't trust the hyper links).

As an editor of a scientific journal, I can tell you that fraud in that area is rampant; plagiarism is such that everything submitted is now run through software to cross check it against the existing literature....

If you have suspicions about US news sources, try BBC or Canadian sources (cbcnews.com). At least those are in English. It's not such a bad idea to get a complete outsiders view of what's going on over here. I'd like to say the same about our sources re foreign events but we're so inward focused that it's hard to get real news about other places unless something really bad has happened.

I regularly tout the BBC news. Other than finding the US rather droll and amusing, their agenda seems far more even handed than the rest.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

...and where did those libraries, encyclopedias, and "reference books" and magazines get their information, which we trusted and, therefore, cited in our footnotes and bibliographies?

There was actually trust put into the academics and the researchers that assembled that information. Once upon a time, we could trust those sources. That has since faded to trust but verify, doubt all, and discount anything that one disagrees with or finds inconvenient.

So which method seems best? Both - for their particular circumstances and time in history?

Trust but verify, doubt all, and discount anything that seems to good to be true, or the slightest bit hinky in any direction.

[MurphOnMillerAve]

I also enjoy doing that - watching the News on CBS, NBC, and ABC; then, going to the BBC to see what their take is on various points/events/phenomena in the News. They do seem mildly, or at least somewhat, amused when reporting about matters inside the USA.

A source I do not explore/endure is News broadcast from China, or other Far Eastern cultures. The ones I've opened myself up to upon rare occasion, from China, seemed, to me, to be particularly empty and cold. However, on a couple occasions, I did catch pieces on local cuisines, and came to the conclusion that they will eat just about ANYthing. Locusts and cicadas seemed particularly favorite. Ohwell, if it makes 'em happy, taint my business.

[chuck]

Every "story" has a slant. If it didn't, it probably wasn't worth reading. If you know it's slanted and how (people used to tell you up front) you can adjust your take on it accordingly.

If your read on the story is based from multiple diverse inputs you can ferret out the real facts and agree with one side or the other or develop your own take. This does require some work and some thinking. Those particular activities seem to currently be held in disfavor amongst the general population.

That's actually what people used to do only it was somewhat easier in the old days. We did rely on filters that actually stood/believed in something other than their own arrogance and greed. Most professionals (journalists, scientists, historians, ...) actually took pride in a job well done. The emphasis has shifted to a pay check that is well padded. The supreme irony is that with near instant access to mountains of information people are finding it harder than ever to figure out what is going on?

There was a tongue in cheek sig block back in the old days of usenet news (precursor to the internet) where the disclaimer about "opinions expressed not necessarily being the companies" to "they're not even mine, you can rent them if the price is right". It doesn't seem as funny now as it did 30 years ago.