How biased can sources be, before they aren't considered useful references here?

Question

I've now seen several references to the The Meir Amit Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center in the context of the Israeli/Hamas 2023 War to "buttress" claims of misdeeds by Hamas.

Now, far from me to defend Hamas. 10/7 attacks were terrorism, pure and simple, with hundreds of civilians slaughtered at close range, often under apparently atrocious conditions. These were not "collateral damage deaths".

But the Meir Amit center is clearly engaged in countering Hamas. While their information may or may not be correct (I was not particularly impressed reading the 2 cited articles), they certainly have a huge vested interest in stating news making Hamas look bad. News which may, with a very high degree of likelihood, very well be true: Hamas, again, is a terrorist organization.

However, I am sure we could also ensure a parade of citations from pro-Palestinians websites with all sorts of claims of bombed babies in Palestinian refugee camps. News which would also, with an equally high degree of likelihood, be true.

Personally, I would tend to discount both sources and look for more neutral ones when making references. And, at least, primarily refer to news sources. Not organizations with a particular goal. Or, for that matter, random Joes posting on Twitter.

Is this something that the community should generally expect, from answers and questions, that we try to use sources with a minimum threshold of neutrality? If so, should we be as diligent removing posts and comments on both sides of this unfortunate conflict (again, started by Hamas)?

Answer 1

I suggest the following:

• If the source isn't a mainstream media or a reputed institute, and suspect, ask the author to inform the reader about the potential bias. (For example, instead of "XYZ think tank says ...", write "XYZ think tank, run by this political party / government, says ... ").

• If a clearly better and more neutral source exists, recommend replacing the biased source with it.

Pros of this approach:

1. Mods / editors are less likely to introduce their own bias to the Q&A (or face such complaints).

2. Reduces the workload of mods / editors in trying to determine how to deal with a biased source or how to replace it without changing the content or offending the author.

3. Being transparent increases the readers faith as it shows that we respect and trust them to use their own judgement.

Cons:

1. Some low quality content (propaganda) is likely to creep in.

Answer 2

It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it.

Upton Sinclair

I don't think we need lists of allowed/prohibited sources, but people posting answers and voting on them may want to take the motivations of the groups making claims when using them as sources. We won't get perfectly neutral sources easily, but at least we can be cognizant of their biases when using them.

Ask yourself if the quotes below really tell you anything:

• The ACLU states that Guantanamo is unconstitutional.

• The Department of Justice rules that Guantanamo is constitutional.

How about if you switch to :

• The ACLU admits Guantanamo is not unconstitutional and wants the laws changed.

• The Department of Justice admits shortcomings in Guantanamo's operations

Basically, in the first instance, you have 2 groups who will, almost by definition, hold a certain position. To a large extent, they will not publish anything deviating from it unless they have a very good reason.

Using them as sources would not enhance your answer much.

Likewise, if you want to make a case that Russia is deporting Ukrainian children, you won't convince too many doubters by quoting Zelensky.

However, you can quote TASS admitting just that. Which is an example of the second usage of partisan sources - citing them admitting uncomfortable facts.

Are you sourcing an easily verifiable fact? An interpretation? Is it controversial?

Now, something also to take into account is what the reference is meant to corroborate. Is it a viewpoint/opinion? Or a fact that is verifiable independently? How controversial is it?

Quoting Zelensky stating that Russia's invasion started on Feb 22nd, 2022 is quoting someone with a large bias in the subject. But it is also an eminently verifiable fact. No need to go overboard hunting for the perfectly neutral source.

If you want to look into Afghanistan civilian deaths during the US mission, the Pentagon may not be the best source. If you instead want to know how many US troops were deployed there year by year, the Pentagon is the place to go.

Answer 3

Another suggestion: use Vote to Delete more often on material that's plain disinfo like fake quotes and the like.

It's more complicated when it comes to "spin" articles that are not plain fakes but "generously" interpret something. But even some answers like that were deleted, on more sensitive subjects.

Answer 4

Personally, I would tend to discount both sources and look for more neutral ones when making references. And, at least, primarily refer to news sources. Not organizations with a particular goal. Or, for that matter, random Joes posting on Twitter.

No free lunch, no neutral source
I disagree with this approach. I believe that there are no unbiased sources, since any information is collected, filtered, and presented by people and organizations (made of people) which have conscious and unconscious bias. (In this sense, propaganda is simply conscious and deliberate bias.)

Cross-checking
In this sense, looking for a neutral source is a pointless endeavor. The way to determine the truth is by cross-checking several sources, preferably with known different political orientation. Even the sources generally considered as biased, like Russia Today or Al Jazeera may contain hints or seeds to events/facts, omitted elsewhere - these can be than followed with a pointed search for more information.

Official sources
In some cases the truth is rather easy to establish and check, e.f., using official sources. Thus, one should never trust the description of the position of this or that politician by journalists/commentators - it is better to quote verbatim their words on a specific issue, which are typically available via governments web-sites and the like.

Collective language
Another common problem is using collective terms like Russia/Russians, Israel, Gaza, etc. to refer to whole groups of population, which are likely to have different opinions, which are not officially expressed. In other words, these claims are technically never truthful.

Average Joes
I think these deserve less trust than mainstream sources. Their information is always presented as a smoking gun, but it is a single photo/video/witness account, taken from a specific point of view. It cannot replace collection and systematization of information obtained from multiple sources - which is what one typically obtains from serious media outlets or experienced commentators.

It is worth mentioning here the Rashomon effect - people observing the same events, but focusing on completely different aspects of them, and presenting similarly contradictory accounts.

Answer 5

I don't have a full answer (nor do I care to make one), but I'd like to point a VERY relevant thing here: there's a marked difference between Israeli news sources (biased or not) and Palestinian.

• The former (pro-Israel, especially pro-Netaniahu or anything smacking of right wing-ish or nationalistic), don't exist in a vacuum - they exist in a democratic environment, with a vast wealth of independent media which is largely hostile (both domestic and especially foreign). In other words, any claim that is outright false, WILL be widely dissected and widely criticized as contradicting facts, by people with a vested interest in doing so, both commercial AND ideological.

• The latter (pro-Hamas), usually relies on the word of a tyrannical military organization which has zero independent domestic media, zero domestic political opposition (OK, Islamic Jihad exists, but that's irrelevant in this context), and in international media environment - especially outside USA - generally favourable coverage, both in theory, and as we saw in practice - Hamas's outight lie when their own missile hit the hospital was widely parroted by nearly every media organizaion without ever bothering to fact check, and STILL hasn't been contradicted.

In other words, there are reasons to believe that if the former source posts something inaccurate, it is fairly easy to find disproving/contradicting info. The latter source, it is not the case.

For less politically charged analogy, think about an article from peer reviewed journal, and an article from predatory paywalled self-publish journal. Which was is more likely to be easier to ascertain truth/correctness of?