Of corse I've been immersed in politics for so long, over 30 years, that I know a lot of this stuff already -- like those guys in the toll booths -- they can pick up the right amount of change without even looking because they've done it so many times and for so long. Thanks for stopping by.Peggy W, thank you for reading, commenting, voting, and especially for sharing this hub! In many cases, U.S. government agencies overseas or directed overseas such as the United States Information Service (old name) and Voice of America are directing propaganda which must be examined as fact or ficition. Sometimes the things people write online are so ludicrous that with a little thought one can figure out that they are tall tails. . . ; Hardware Resources - View a list of all hardware drivers and information associated … Like so:The distant suggestion, these researchers write, is that Google’s version of the truth would iterate over time. My husband would always ask me, "Why are you listening to that numb skull?" For some reason people tend to accept whatever these email forwards say without question, never even wondering who originated the ‘forward’ or whether there is even a single word of accuracy in them. have to bookmark it for future reference.Jeff Berndt, thank you for taking the time to read and comment on this hub! Never assume that because someone is well known that they are being factual. Too often, individuals cherry pick data from a variety of ... let’s say “questionable” sources, cobbling together a few statistics that are incomplete -- or worse, completely irrelevant.Whether you’re communicating to your boss or your consumer, all data starts with a good data source.Whether you’re working with internal or external data, make sure it is always coming from the primary source. We now can trust no one to tell us 100% of the truth 100% of the time. Is the nonfiction book or article by your favorite author really accurate and factual?

Does any respected source list them as a credible authority or expert on the subject they are commenting on or promoting?Do not assume anything. You can't stop that train. If it is an advertiser, their agenda is pretty obvious. Evaluate the source. Very sad indeed.Robert Sacchi, thank you for sharing that experience. Some data producers, such as the Department of Labor, revise their data on an annual or even monthly basis -- but this is not always the case for every data producer.Ideally, you'll want your data to be one or two years old at most. Politicians know most people behave this way and take advantage of them by spreading untruths that often end up gong viral.Sadly, people as uninformed as the electorate are often voted into office and that is why our country is quickly becoming a 3rd world country for the majority and a haven for the wealthy.Recently I read a hub, can't remember who wrote it, but the author pointed out that listening to only one news source was little different from not listening to any because as explained in this article, every news agency, and really, every person has a slant, an agenda, and so one must listen to and ideally read, several news agencies accounts. Tell me something I haven’t heard before and if you can back it up with solid reference, I may even change my mind about something. In the past, I have believed a lot of things but thank GOD, now, I test everything that is been shuffled at me.Au Fait - This is a very well-written and informative essay. This gets you to the source of the information. You are so correct in that biases undoubtedly come out over time even if a person tries their best to report "just the facts" and nothing but the facts.

Take a few seconds or minutes to research the facts.Parroting (repeating) things you have heard others say that some of us may know through our knowledge or research is mistaken or misguided takes a lot of credibility away from you. There were some Irish too, but I can’t remember the name.

The same news story will be reported very differently on ABC, CBS, CNN, and in the New York Times, Time Magazine, The Dallas Morning News, USA Today, the Wall Street Journal, etc.Everything, including novels and anything on TV, the Internet, or in print will have a slant depending on the person's viewpoint who is writing and/or directing it. I do not mean to take away from it.Unfortunately, at close to 60, those sources have been proven wrong over and over again, where I just do not believe what they print. I don't like site that give medical advice. Is the name of the author/creator on the page? Be aware that there are websites that write spoofs for entertainment. They will say and do whatever it takes to bring people in line with their beliefs and ideas because they truly believe the end justifies the means. I think it's wise to read many different sources before relying on any one of them, taking their slant into consideration. I like the 2 political organizations you listed too. Some other words of this ilk are absquatulate, also first appearing in the 1820s, skedaddle, first attested in 1861 in Missouri, and discombobulate, first recorded in 1916. If somewhere in the information there is an easily spotted inaccuracy, don't trust the balance of the information. Spellings sometimes vary with different families.Years ago I became immersed in politics because my husband was into it and his undergrad degree was in political science. Thank you for referring to it often and for commenting!I have to keep reading this hub, it is that informative and useful.Lesley T, thank you for reading and commenting on this hub. When you limit yourself to only one or two news sources you are just asking to be taken advantage of and fooled into lies.