How do you distinguish fact from fiction?

Not following the DM editorial, opionistas, and their "sources" is already a good start.. Paying this biased outlet only to support the odd moment of true journalism by the Pieter-Louis Myburghs and Paulie van Wyks feels like a waste truly..

I pay attention to who the author or podcaster is and their track record. Have I read or heard them before? Any piece by an unfamiliar name, and certainly any unattributable info, I consume very carefully. Not foolproof of course as the disinformation machine is getting more sophisticated, but there is something comforting that in our increasingly AI and bot-shaped digital world, verifiable human identity and proven human integrity remain our best safeguards for what can be trusted.

I don't know why but I spend my life being annoyed with Maverick's opinions, irritated by their lack of any deep understanding of important issues, threatening to myself to cancel my subscription ....... but never doing so. I need to concentrate a bit on this.

I don't know why but I spend my life being annoyed with Maverick's opinions, irritated by their lack of any deep understanding of important issues, threatening to myself to cancel my subscription ....... but never doing so. I need to concentrate a bit on this.

IT depends what's at stake. If somebody is telling me that Knopfler is a better guitarist than Clapton well you say potato & I say po-tah-to & so what? If you want me to believe there are 15 million illegal immigrants in SA then I'd like to see some plausible data please. "Plausible" is not a screenshot of a tweet saying the same thing you're saying. Or I will fact check & come to my own conclusions, but the burden of constant fact checking is large.

There are two things. The first is to know what your doctrine/beliefs are built on. Don't just go around talking about Marxism (for EG) but understand it's foundations. I know a surprising number of people who identify as "Christian" but have little idea what's in the Bible. You can bamboozle those guys easily. The other thing is to do the same for the guys on the other side. Study the foundations of what they believe so you can spot their stuff easily. This takes time.

There should be an onus on the sources as well. All of them should clearly indicate if a piece is reportage (a thing happened), analysis (the implications of what happened) or opinion (what somebody thinks about something - preferably that is actually happening) and keep them separate. This doesn't chill anybody's tongue, but does allow us to sift facts from (hopefully expert) opinion. "MSM" are better at this, but not all of them. "Content creators" too often blur those boundaries.

The heading (title) is quite misleading. Not just fact or fiction .. but half fact and part fiction is the real challenge !