Rely on fact-based, accountable news sources

I have always considered myself a news junkie. So I thought. About 20 years ago, I began embracing a philosophy of skepticism and evidence-based thinking, yet cable news remained my primary information source. I had not yet learned the difference between the 20-plus hours of partisan commentary cable feeds viewers and actual evidence-based journalism.

I have since cut the cord and learned the distinction between cable networks like Fox, CNN, and MSNBC, and reputable outlets like the AP, Reuters, and this newspaper. People often say, “I wish the media would just give me the facts.” That is exactly what professional newsrooms do.

Reputable outlets rely on rigorous fact verification, neutral language, transparent attribution, and a clear separation of fact and opinion. When evidence clearly points in one direction, reporting reflects that weight. They are not infallible, but when errors occur, they issue public corrections. When journalists intentionally violate ethics — such as Dan Rather, Brian Williams, or Jayson Blair — they are held accountable.

This stands in stark contrast to cable “news.” It is almost pure commentary where facts are loose, emotions are manipulated and hosts face no journalistic accountability. This was laid bare when primetime Fox hosts knowingly misled viewers night after night for two years.

We can view facts through different lenses and reach different conclusions. But cherry-picking reality or making speculative leaps without evidence is why so many believe climate change is a hoax, 9/11 was an inside job, Jan. 6 was nonviolent, or the attempt on Donald Trump's life was staged.

Come out of the bubble, America. I do not care if your opinions differ from mine, but base them on objective facts and evidence. If you cannot incorporate the evidence into your opinions, do not change the evidence — change your opinion.

Roger Tucker, Mundelein